Election campaign kicks off

mayonnaise

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

MP's expenses even at the levels they actually are need complete reform.

Sure we need reform. We should get rid of the whole expenses system and start paying MP's a decent salary.
MP's salary is now 67k? It should be double or tripple (:)) that amount, at least.
Seriously, why would anyone with a brain and aspirations go into politics while you can make a multiple of that salary in the private sector?
Pay peanuts and you get monkeys.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

As Generali stated earlier, it's a small cost and done (in my opinion) to gain votes as opposed to making tax fairer

I suspect the changes are for 2 reasons:

1. Prop up the (possibly) pro-UKIP, older, more anti-immigration vote (71% of potential UKIP voters are over 50)
2. Simplify the tax system

neverdespairgirl

ukcarper wrote: »

I accept that you might not be awash with money after your large mortgage and £27k childcare but they are expenses the majority of people can't pay.

It's the other way around with the childcare - the sort of jobs OH and I do to earn a decent income means that cheaper childcare doesn't work. It's not available for the necessary hours and with the necessary flexibility.

The huge mortgage isn't because we choose to live in a Mayfair Mansion, it's a 3 bedroom flat in EC1.

ukcarper

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

It's the other way around with the childcare - the sort of jobs OH and I do to earn a decent income means that cheaper childcare doesn't work. It's not available for the necessary hours and with the necessary flexibility.

The huge mortgage isn't because we choose to live in a Mayfair Mansion, it's a 3 bedroom flat in EC1.

It's not that I don't believe you but with an income of £100k you are in the upper levels of income and the majority of people earn a lot less. The median full time earnings in 2013 was just under £27k.

neverdespairgirl

ukcarper wrote: »

It's not that I don't believe you but with an income of £100k you are in the upper levels of income and the majority of people earn a lot less. The median full time earnings in 2013 was just under £27k.

I know. But the idea that we have 4 time the income of someone on £27k is untrue. Higher incomes very often require higher expenditure (such as on childcare, or clothes, or living in a more expensive area, for example) than lower incomes.

mayonnaise

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

.... but I'm sure the more lefty politicians and posters on this board nevertheless take us out of the "hard-working families" cliche and insert us into the "rich and privileged" cliche instead, and want us to pay a lot more tax.

Not only that, but if Graham and his ilk get their way, you'll be paying for your own prescriptions past the age of 65 also. Because you can afford it.
And while you're at it, you can also fund asthma inhalers for the kids of lower earners. It's not their fault they're on a lower income, it just happened.
It's all about fairness you know.

ukcarper

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I know. But the idea that we have 4 time the income of someone on £27k is untrue. Higher incomes very often require higher expenditure (such as on childcare, or clothes, or living in a more expensive area, for example) than lower incomes.

True but that doesn't alter the fact that you are a higher earner. I'm not saying that you should be taxed more just that you are a higher earner.

ukcarper

mayonnaise wrote: »

Not only that, but if Graham and his ilk get their way, you'll be paying for your own prescriptions past the age of 65 also. Because you can afford it.
And while you're at it, you can also fund asthma inhalers for the kids of lower earners. It's not their fault they're on a lower income, it just happened.
It's all about fairness you know.

I don't really want to be lumped in with Graham but do you really believe everybody has the potential to be a higher earner.

mayonnaise

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't really want to be lumped in with Graham but do you really believe everybody has the potential to be a higher earner.

No, but everybody has the potential to make a living for themselves and their family without having to go cap in hand to the state.

There are exceptions of course e.g. disabled, long term sick, pensioners...etc...and I'm all for generous benefits in these cases, but this system which takes away all motivation for a lower earner to earn more (because they'll lose benefits!) is a perverse one and should stop.

Graham_Devon

mayonnaise wrote: »

No, but everybody has the potential to make a living for themselves and their family without having to go cap in hand to the state.

Sorry, but you have suggested it's wrong for me to suggest people who can afford to pay for prescriptions pay for them - instead of getting them free from the state....

....but then equally have a pop at lower earning individuals going "cap in hand" to the state suggesting they should do more to look after themselves.

Your desire to have a go has overtaken your ability to avoid shooting yoursef in both feet.