Budget live

ILW

dori2o wrote: »

Actually, yes I am.

I see a lot more lazy layabouts that come from the 'better off' end of the scale, who have never wanted for anything, had mummy and daddy provide everything for them, wipe their *rse for them well into their teens, when compated to kids from those families that struggle to get by week to week or month to month who have seen their parents struggle to get by and provide a home for their kids as best they can.

Pretty sure that you will find that the children of middle class families tend to end up earning more(and paying more tax) than the children of the benefits underclass. It may not be nice, but it is the case.

dori2o

ILW wrote: »

Pretty sure that you will find that the children of middle class families tend to end up earning more(and paying more tax) than the children of the benefits underclass. It may not be nice, but it is the case.

Care to provide any factual proof for that?

As for benefits underclass, I claim benefits. I also work. Not full time as I can't anymore, but I still do 30+ hours. I've never been out of work. My wife also works.

My kids are both in the top 5% of their class, despite the youngest sufferring from ODD.

Compare this to the guy down the road. Works as a manager for Sainsbury's. Earnings are above £40k (as he keeps telling us in the pub) he has 3 kids plus one from an earlier marriage. Their ages range from about 26 down to 8 (the youngest is at school with my youngest).

The 26 year old is currently in prison.

The other 2 that have left school don't work and one has been in trouble with the police loads of times for theft.

The youngest is a bully and is regularly in trouble at school and has been banned from attending school disco's, summer gala etc due to their behaviour.

It may be the case that SOME of the people at the lower end of the income scale have kids that will never amount to anything, but it is also the case that SOME of the kids from the middle/upper classes will never amount to anything or contribute to society.

There is no one size fits all description of any class, and your comment simply confirms what an ignorant [STRIKE]person[/STRIKE] pig you really are.

ILW

I am talking averages here, not specific anecdotal examples.

PaulF81

You aren't applying Normal Distribution to your theory Dori.


Expand your example across the entire population and you would be found wrong.

Here is a good book for you.

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

pqrdef

patman99 wrote: »

CB used to be paid for the first child only. Maybe this should be reintroduced.

Other way round. It was paid for all children after the eldest.

Generali

Well done Hamish. I did this last year (year before?) and it was quite fun.

The interesting bit (for me) is the huge reduction in the share of GDP taken by the Government from 48% to 43% predicted for next year. Falling borrowing should be good for growth in the longer term too as it will free up money for banks to lend to businesses rather than for the Government to spend.

stewil18

sunshinetours wrote: »

Yes you are - I said "currently"

All major economies have some sort of tiered/marginal taxation type system for personal earnings

except my premise was on a 15% flat tax, not on the current system

stewil18

The_White_Horse wrote: »

who are you to say that people earning over 60k are fine? you don't know peoples circumstances. 60k may be very comfortable for some, and may not be for others.

for a single man of 50 who bought a property in the mid 80's and lives in Leeds he may be loaded.

for a married man in his 20's with 3 kids who bought property in London at the height of the boom, it may be a struggle.

who knows.

and who are you to say that the poor are fine yet they get to choose whether they should eat or have heat? But because they have a free roof over their head, thats ok?

I would rather be the man in his 20's (i wish), 3 kids and living in London, earning £60k than the man who has to decide whether there is enough money in his pocket to buy a tin of beans or to put 50p in the meter, any day of the week.

stewil18

FTBFun wrote: »

Flat taxes are good for young, post-command economies like in Eastern Europe, but the "fairer" systems are those which take into account people's incomes overall, and that the richer in part subsidise the poorer.

I see you completely ignored my point about public spending.

What would you like me to say about public spending? How much was it last year? Now if you could just find out for me how many people paid tax and what they earned, i guess i could do some sums and find out what the shortfall would be if we introduced a flat tax, if in fact there would be a shortfall - i don't know as i don't have all the figures.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

Well done Hamish. I did this last year (year before?) and it was quite fun.

Cheers. I did one previously here, and I know you've done one previously, but don't remember which years.

I do recall some folks said they were useful for those not in front of a telly at the time so as I'm usually watching it anyway may as well post it.

The interesting bit (for me) is the huge reduction in the share of GDP taken by the Government from 48% to 43% predicted for next year. Falling borrowing should be good for growth in the longer term too as it will free up money for banks to lend to businesses rather than for the Government to spend.

Yes, real progress there.

Also happily surprised in recent times to read that almost all of the SLS has now been paid back, and that most UK banks are already nearing the capital reserve requirements of BASLE 3.

I'd say if we continue along this path credit may start to become a fair bit less crunched within the next couple of years, in which case a proper recovery is now closer than many people realise, and would (as I'm sure they've been aiming for) start in time for the next election.