think tank thinks child benefit change is a farce

John_Pierpoint

Presumably bribing an individual tax payer with their own money does not count as government spending? [Along with PFI borrowing from our grand children's futures,
selling off natural resources (is there really any difference between selling wave bands and selling the landing rights at Athens airport?]

There were two ways of getting rid of debt after WW2 and prior to 2000.
One was to devalue the purchasing power of the currency about 15 fold and the other was to discover a lake of oil under the North Sea.

What do you suggest this time round?

Where would you start?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2010/oct/15/comprehensive-spending-review-2010-public-spending

[Please Grauniad update this, but leave the two year old version as a comparison - then we will see that tomorrow never comes to politicians who need to get re-elected by a bribe-able electorate].

dktreesea

I'm not even sure why households with a £30k per year income need child benefit, let alone any household with a £50k per annum income. So to only take it away from households if one person earns over £50k is a kick in the nuts, imho, for all the tax paying lower income people who can't claim child benefit because they don't have any children as of yet.

If high earners want a tax rebate they should instead be campaigning for a reduction in their marginal tax rate, not a continuation of their benefits. That way all high income earners would benefit, not just those with children.

I would rather see a more user pays attitude to tax, whereby income tax is quite low, but tax on items the government doesn't want to encourage over consumption of, like alcohol, petrol and cigarettes, is reasonably high. No VAT on chocolate? Perhaps there ought to be.

I prefer New Zealand's approach to taxation. Low income tax rates and GST (VAT) on everything. And no rebates for tourists either. At least that way tourists pay for things like their sewage processing/water consumption/road usage via the tqaxation system, and local people don't get fleeced if they are frugal with their money.

BobQ

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Anyone who is Euro-sceptic is well advised to vote UKIP in the Euro elections. It makes no difference to anything in the real world, but it provides a superb wake-up call to the other parties to show how sick so many people are at being jerked around by these a*******s in Brussels.

Yes and because its a secret ballot you can be counted along with the anti immigrant community and others who do not have a BNP candidate.

BobQ

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..

Maybe.

Or maybe its another way of reducing it (ie by getting more people into work ) which is what happened after those peaks. Of course it would help if that did not require us to subsidise employers by paying derisory wages

John_Pierpoint

dktreesea wrote: »

No VAT on chocolate? Perhaps there ought to be.

There is VAT on most chololate and its derivatives, like chocolate coated biscuits and chocolate ice cream, hence the famous "Jaffa cake" judgement - no VAT on cakes.

GeorgeHowell

BobQ wrote: »

Yes and because its a secret ballot you can be counted along with the anti immigrant community and others who do not have a BNP candidate.

Unless I'm misreading it that looks like a repetition of the tired old leftie jibe that UKIP must be racists at heart because they speak out against mass immigration. Even most Labour politicians have dropped that claptrap now, having got rid of Blair and Brown, it's main purveyors.

Surprised you didn't call me a Daily Mail reader too,

Dinosaur.

exarmydreamer

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

There were two ways of getting rid of debt after WW2 and prior to 2000.
One was to devalue the purchasing power of the currency about 15 fold and the other was to discover a lake of oil under the North Sea.

What do you suggest this time round?

Where would you start?

Falkland Islands oil, me thinks.

John_Pierpoint

We are running out of colonies and those that are left are somewhat uneconomic.
Off shore platforms in Atlantic storms with nobody in S.America prepared to process the stuff?

exarmydreamer

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

We are running out of colonies and those that are left are somewhat uneconomic.
Off shore platforms in Pacific storms with nobody in S.America prepared to process the stuff?

I believe it would be a question of supply and demand. Who ever has the oil, (liquid gold), has the proverbial stick. Amazing how many 'friends', you suddenly have when they want something.:)

BobQ

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Unless I'm misreading it that looks like a repetition of the tired old leftie jibe that UKIP must be racists at heart because they speak out against mass immigration. Even most Labour politicians have dropped that claptrap now, having got rid of Blair and Brown, it's main purveyors.

Surprised you didn't call me a Daily Mail reader too,

Dinosaur.

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