Credit Crunch Return ???

ceridwen

Lizling wrote: »

We're only about 53rd. About 35th if you don't count territories like Hong Kong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density

E.g. Macau 48,000 people per square mile
Singapore - 18,513 people per square mile
Britain - 660 people per square mile




Edit: I'm assuming you mean highest density of population because I'm not sure how else you'd quantify over-populated.

Hmmm...I've read this pretty often in various locations - so guess maybes different criteria are being used - eg about whether the people in a country are pretty "spread out" or have a tendency to cluster in more "major" built-up areas?? I've often read that we are down to 1 acre each if all the land was shared round between us equally - and I suspect that our "land ration" includes ALL the uses we have for land (ie not just foodgrowing/our personal house) on the one hand and that those who are here "unofficially :cool:" arent being taken into account because they dont officially live here on the other hand (but they ARE still using resources by definition).

parsonswife8

I'm dreading the stock markets opening on Monday. I think there are going to be further bad losses.

ali-t

ceridwen wrote: »

On the other hand - an article in todays papers was on about cutting the maximum tax rate from 50% to 45% on the other hand....:cool::mad::( - when people in my generation remember when it was set at 98% - but we are seeing the rich whingeing/making excuses about just why it needs to be cut - in the current climate:eek::mad::eek:. Why ...why...why...are some people so selfish and/or blind?:(:mad::(

Is that for real? When were people taxed at 98% of their income? I have never been aware of that but flipping heck, that's harsh!

ceridwen

ali-t wrote: »

Is that for real? When were people taxed at 98% of their income? I have never been aware of that but flipping heck, that's harsh!

It was quite some time back now and I dont know when the cut in tax rates down to a lower level happened. It was in my younger days I know and I was just reminded of it the other day when a member of T'landed Gentry who was a bit younger than myself commented on how his father had urged him to base himself abroad because of that 98% tax rate.

These days I think we might more realistically go for the LibDem idea of a mansion tax - ie on accommodation in the £1 million plus price bracket - as houses cant get up and move country to avoid paying their dues in the same way people can...and I understand we are experiencing a recent increase in the influx of the international mega-rich buying up expensive properties in places like London to have as a boltholes in case they feel forced to flee from the Arab Spring and the like in their own countries.

HariboJunkie

ali-t wrote: »

Is that for real? When were people taxed at 98% of their income? I have never been aware of that but flipping heck, that's harsh!

From Wikipedia;

In 1974 the top-rate of income tax increased to its highest rate since the war, 83%. This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£155,247 as of 2011),[2], and combined with a 15% surcharge on 'un-earned' income (investments and dividends) could add to a 98% marginal rate of personal income tax. In 1974, as many as 750,000 people were liable to pay the top-rate of income tax.[4] Margaret Thatcher, who favoured indirect taxation, reduced personal income tax rates during the 1980s.[5] In the first budget after her election victory in 1979, the top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%.[6] The basic rate was also cut for three successive budgets - to 29% in the 1986 budget, 27% in 1987 and to 25% in 1988.[7] The top rate of income tax was cut to 40% in the 1988 budget.

I'm happy to see the tax rate for the wealthy reduced marginally if it encourages wealthy business people to stay in the UK and create jobs.
On the other hand I would like to see benefits looked at more closely to stop the long term unemployed being better off financially that those in low paid jobs.

ceridwen

Well - you're likely to get your wish pretty darn soon now courtesy of:

a. People in the 25-34 agebracket brought into the agebracket not deemed entitled to be given sufficient housing benefit to cover the cost of a 1 bedroom flat (even if they are in one currently whilst in employment)

and

b. The national government is now giving to give the powers to local government to administer Council Tax benefit I understand - AND, at the same time, will be cutting the amount of money they pay them to cover the CT missing because of unemployed people not being able to pay this because of insufficient income level to do so. This cut, I understand, will be in the nature of 10%.

From which I drew the conclusion "Oh yes -looks like local councils (because of being told they will only be reimbursed 90% of what they need to cover that missing CT) will darn soon be likely to turn round to those on benefit and say that they are to pay 10% of their CT even if they are unemployed". The advantage to the Government of devolving this responsibility to local government will be that it will be local Councils (rather than national Government) that will be the "fall guys" to get the flack if that is indeed what happens...:(

One way or another local Councils will have to "balance their books" from that reduction - and it is my guess that they will turn round directly to benefit claimants and do so by making them pay that missing 10% (out of about £65? per week - a bit of which might already be "going missing" to make up a shortfall in rent money they are given:eek::eek::eek:).

Morganarla

Dan and I had a conversation about this earlier, prompted by this thread. He's much more clued up on politics, finance, world economics etcetc than I am, but boy am I worried now

Lizling

ceridwen wrote: »

Hmmm...I've read this pretty often in various locations - so guess maybes different criteria are being used

If you think about it, no matter what criteria we use - average density, max density of cities, amount of food produced per resident... there's no way Britain can compare with the skyscraper-filled city states of south-east Asia.

We'd still struggle badly if we suddenly needed to be able to go self-sufficient though.

Butterfly_Brain

I remember the 33% basic income tax and 15% mortgage rate as well, but I would rather pay an extra 1p in the pound to help with the deficit than have these savage cuts

ceridwen

The thing I have followed most closely personally over the (quite a few - ahem) years by now is Dole Money (having been unemployed before now - so once one has been unemployed, there is always the fear that it might happen again and the wish to be retired and safe from that risk is there).

So - I remember:
- when people got paid extra on top of a basic Dole Money level based on what their former salary had been (think that had been cut before I got to be unemployed - as I never had that?)

- when non-means tested benefits were paid for a year (ie not 6 months only before one gets put onto means-tested ones)

- when a certain size housing meant get a Fuel Allowance (which I had myself)

- when money was paid for Water Rates (also had that myself)

- when the disqualification period for getting Dole Money if one was deemed to have resigned from a job without good reason was a maximum of 6 weeks (its been 26 weeks for ages now)

- when there were special payments made as lump sum grants to cover more expensive household items needing replacing (eg beds/cookers)

- when mortgage interest was paid from the outset and covered all the mortgage interest payable and continued for however long it was needed (no waiting weeks for it/having it capped and even having a point at which they stop paying it:eek:)

- when full benefit (including housing benefit) was paid to ALL adults (and not just those 25 or older - soon to be 35 or older)

- I believe peeps used to be paid sufficient housing benefit to cover their rent level - WITHOUT querying whether they had accommodation that was "too big" for them and forced to move to smaller accommodation if they became unemployed

- It was only married claimants that found themselves not receiving due Dole Money once they got swopped over to means-tested benefits because of the length of time they had been unemployed (since then - first heterosexual living together claimants were told to rely on their partner if they became unemployed. Then gay living together claimants were told to do so too).

Thats the ones that come to mind - there may be others that I have overlooked. There has been absolutely HUGE cuts in benefit payable since I started work then (leastways to those who dont have children).

So - what needs to be borne in mind when the Government discusses benefit cuts is that that is coming ON TOP of all the ones already implemented over the last 25 years or so.