think tank thinks child benefit change is a farce

StevieJ

exarmydreamer wrote: »

Falkland Islands oil, me thinks.

What about Blackpool gas?

GeorgeHowell

BobQ wrote: »

Dinosaur? Thank you;)

I was not actually suggesting that UKIP itself is institutionally racist, I was speaking of some of those who vote for them.

All parties have some oddballs in them, but I think UKIP has far more than its fair share (and they probably read the Daily Mail too now you mention it!). So I was just suggesting that if you vote UKIP and tell anyone you risk being associated with this crowd.

I have to admit that I too find Nigel Farage increasingly credible as a party leader and I do sometimes wonder if the party has changed as he would have us believe. If you google "UKIP news" you get:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20961650

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ugly-face-of-ukip-sunday-mirror-1531879


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20985498

Some of the people who vote for all the major parties are racist, I have no doubt. Look how the BNP have occasionally taken council seats in traditional Labour areas. Smearing UKIP as racist, with no real evidence, is just part of the smear campaign by the Europhiles. No surprise that those links are from the Daiy Mirror and the BBC. I cannot imagine voting UKIP for Westminster but I certainly would in the EU elections, and I would openly tell people I have, and if any s**t-for-brains imbecile wanted to call me a racist to my face on the strength of it I would tell them they had just committed slander, and ask whether they want to take it any further ...

exarmydreamer

StevieJ wrote: »

What about Blackpool gas?

We'd have to see if we could frack the Blackpool rock, for gas!:rotfl::rotfl:

BobQ

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Some of the people who vote for all the major parties are racist, I have no doubt. Look how the BNP have occasionally taken council seats in traditional Labour areas. Smearing UKIP as racist, with no real evidence, is just part of the smear campaign by the Europhiles. No surprise that those links are from the Daiy Mirror and the BBC. I cannot imagine voting UKIP for Westminster but I certainly would in the EU elections, and I would openly tell people I have, and if any s**t-for-brains imbecile wanted to call me a racist to my face on the strength of it I would tell them they had just committed slander, and ask whether they want to take it any further ...

Fair enough.

So the first two links are incorrect?

I have no idea if they are true but if I were sympathetic to UKIP's sensible policies it would make me think again.

UKIP will be suing you think?

chewmylegoff

coastline wrote: »

Welfare spending....bit of a myth by the looks of it...
Those sharp peaks are recessions..1980..1992..2010.
Maybe another reason for reducing it...hmmmm..

the trouble with this graph is that it is completely wrong. in the graph above, tax credits are not included in the welfare budget (tax credit costs actually appear in the budget for HMRC in the govt's accounts). tax credits were introduced and then expanded by the labour administration 1997-2010

here you can see what you get if you lump tax credits in:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/21/budget-2012-spending-tax-visualised#zoomed-picture

total welfare spending in 2012 was £207 billion - GDP is about £1.5 trillion - so welfare is in fact running close to 14% of GDP.

so imagine your graph with a straight line from the 1997 figure up to 14% and then you can see what has happened to welfare spending in the last 15 years.

DecentLivingWage

The rich know they will they will get their child benefit money back through tax changes - but do the poor? We need to make sure they know as well and spread the word about 'fairness.'

coastline

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the trouble with this graph is that it is completely wrong. in the graph above, tax credits are not included in the welfare budget (tax credit costs actually appear in the budget for HMRC in the govt's accounts). tax credits were introduced and then expanded by the labour administration 1997-2010

here you can see what you get if you lump tax credits in:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/21/budget-2012-spending-tax-visualised#zoomed-picture

total welfare spending in 2012 was £207 billion - GDP is about £1.5 trillion - so welfare is in fact running close to 14% of GDP.

so imagine your graph with a straight line from the 1997 figure up to 14% and then you can see what has happened to welfare spending in the last 15 years.

The chart I've posted shows Welfare spending...which has been reasonably constant around 6% GDP for over a decade until the banking crisis...and falling over decades.
Pensions are a different sector...and the combined total is 14% of GDP as you say...but pensions are rising ..



rising pensions...climbing steadily.



welfare spending..rising in the last few years..



a further breakdown...

http://straighttothesource.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/welfare-spending-2011-2012.jpg

Decades ago we had the Married Mans Allowance ..and even a Child Allowance as a tax break..
Today this would be nearly half the Basic Tax Allowance if still in place....the cost might be a similar amount to the various benefits we have today..

http://www.taxhistory.co.uk/Income%20Tax%20Allowances.htm

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilobrien1/100057527/today-cameron-calls-for-a-debate-on-what-fairness-really-means-but-what-is-fair-when-it-comes-to-families-and-children/

GeorgeHowell

BobQ wrote: »

Fair enough.

So the first two links are incorrect?

I have no idea if they are true but if I were sympathetic to UKIP's sensible policies it would make me think again.

UKIP will be suing you think?

For the EU elections it doesn't really matter what anyone thinks. To Eurosceptics it is an election for an irrelevant and ridiculous institution. But the message that UKIP votes and seats sends to Westminster is very valuable in helping to force democracy back into the equation, and ensuring that the electorate gets a direct say in whether, and to what extent, it wants to be tied to the EU and to the upcoming European federal super-state. In the face of the opinion polls on this, those politicians who are arguing that for some of their number to even contemplate leaving the EU is irresponsible are not democrats, they are autocrats.

John_Pierpoint

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the trouble with this graph is that it is completely wrong. in the graph above, tax credits are not included in the welfare budget (tax credit costs actually appear in the budget for HMRC in the govt's accounts). tax credits were introduced and then expanded by the labour administration 1997-2010

here you can see what you get if you lump tax credits in:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/21/budget-2012-spending-tax-visualised#zoomed-picture

total welfare spending in 2012 was £207 billion - GDP is about £1.5 trillion - so welfare is in fact running close to 14% of GDP.

so imagine your graph with a straight line from the 1997 figure up to 14% and then you can see what has happened to welfare spending in the last 15 years.

Presumably the the pie chart in the Guardian includes the transfer payments to and from local government? Where are the payments to and from the EU ?
Are all the stealth taxes such as compulsory levies on the power bills to pay for environmental measures in "other" on the chart?
What about turning private capital into public debt with PFI - "Figures don't lie but liars sure can figure".

kabayiri

I work with / still in contact with a few freelancer types who operate through an Umbrella. The CB issue was a discussion point, because a number were set to lose it this year.

I believe though that from next year, they will get a salary below the threshold and a bonus payable every other or 3rd year - it was a suggestion floated, nothing concrete.

This means they would be caught only once every third year and lose CB.

Would this work in practise?

It seemed a lot of hassle to me, but then I tend to avoid the flightier of the umbrella outfits.