15 billion more what a joke

setmefree

Taxpayers' exposure to the beleaguered bank has doubled since the beginning of the year and now stands at about £110 billion - more than the annual budget of the NHS and the equivalent of 27p on the basic rate of income tax.

Ron Sandler, Northern Rock's new chairman, admitted that the bank may remain in public hands for 'years'

The newly-installed chairman has been forced to admit that the bank may remain in public hands for "years" - undermining claims by Gordon Brown that the nationalisation was only temporary.

Milarky

dunstonh wrote: »

The outcry of the removal of the 10p tax band is farcical. Some are better off, some are worse off but the lower paid are not worse off by the amounts being quoted in the media because of the increase in personal allowances (especially for over 65s) and tax credits etc.

Someone has found 5.3 million people who won't escape the effects of the change - the ones who are not being compensated (under 65, ineligible for tax credits and/or earning less than c.£17,000 pa - where the 2p reduction is greater than the 10p increase) - a lot of people with votes in other words. There are farcical aspects to the changes - not least that it took MPs and commentators 12 months to discover what the loss of the 10 percent band meant and that its introduction [in 1997?] would have been opposed by the Torys, since GB removed the John Major's 20 percent band (political motives) to bring in his 10 percent one. And now he is being criticised by the same people. Now the government wants to justify its poor (electoral) judgment by saying it would cost '£7bn' to restore the 10p band instead of concentrating on the individual amounts - c.£250 this equates to. But if 'only' 5.3 million are losing, the [additional] cost can be no more than about a fifth of that - c £1.25bn. So the government is really trying to conceal the costs of the [substantial] relief mentioned above in claiming that a must larger figure is at stake than is. If the cost is '£7bn' that has one set of political implications - but if it's a much smaller amount is doesn't nearly so.

What Brown could have done (and clearly chose not to) was raise the personal allowances of everyone by c. £1000 + inflation in a one-off move and get rid of the 10 percent band at the same time - which would have been largely neutral. But then that only makes sense if you are aren't trying to bribe people with a largely non-existent cut in tax (in the name of 'simplification') from 22p to 20p - which you then crudely attempt to claw back.

It's not so much farcical as inept. It makes you think that most of the 'policy makers' (especially the ones reputed to have an attention to detail) are just a bunch of Manchurian Candidates - they really, genuinely believe that GB did all those good things without the evidence to support it

dchurch24

johnmoney05 wrote: »

Sorry, can you please explain? How the money "to be paid back with interest"?

I am under 65s, still a long way to be. So am I better off? One thing is certain, I never receive any tax credits.

Me either, but it didn't stop that joke outfit known as HMRC chasing me for 200 'overpayment of tax credits'.

I've never claimed tax credit, and indeed, I have no idea what the hell they are.

How can I have been overpaid them?

setmefree

dchurch24 wrote: »

Me either, but it didn't stop that joke outfit known as HMRC chasing me for 200 'overpayment of tax credits'.

I've never claimed tax credit, and indeed, I have no idea what the hell they are.

How can I have been overpaid them?

That must be another side line to put the tax money back, they bill you in advance just in case you start to claim and you might be overpaid.:mad:

johnmoney05

I listened to a news the other day, aren't those MPs funding thousands pounds for their second home from the tax money? Why the government not cutting their expense? Although I can afford 80p per week, well, I get it from quidco 70p per week. Can't see it lasts though.

nobblyned

setmefree wrote: »

No they aint been given it from a slush fund,they av got it from the tax payer, and isn't this the second £15 billion loan ??? and that's not including the £25 billion for N.R...

As for your 80p remark regarding the 10p tax...haven't you ever thought of how many people under 65 in this country are working in low paid jobs, these are the same people who struggle to get by day to day...yet this Government thinks nothing of handing over billions of their tax money to those who wouldn't know poverty if it jumped up and bit them on the butt.

And i think you will find that this is the opinion of most of the low paid,used, working class.

So you don't think that lending public money at a profitable rate to inject liquidity into the monetary system and hopefully prevent a recession is a good idea?

A recession will hurt the working classes a hell of a lot more than an 80p tax hike.

setmefree

nobblyned wrote: »

A recession will hurt the working classes a hell of a lot more than an 80p tax hike.

Bearing in mind that the majority of the working class and the poor are living on the bare minimum at the moment, i think you will find that they dont have that much to lose, infact most would be financially better off not working.

On the other hand those middle-class and rich who look down on us poor and working class would have a lot to lose.;)

setmefree

And how many people under 25 work in this country millions i suppose, and they aint entitled to working tax credits>>> funny that (not)

Dithering_Dad

setmefree wrote: »

Bearing in mind that the majority of the working class and the poor are living on the bare minimum at the moment, i think you will find that they dont have that much to lose, infact most would be financially better off not working.

On the other hand those middle-class and rich who look down on us poor and working class would have a lot to lose.;)

I think pretty much everyone loses if we go into recession, no matter where they are on the social/wealth ladder. Even if people don't work (and therefore have no jobs to lose) they will find that the criteria for receiving benefits becomes much stricter when there is not a booming economy to support the welfare state.

As an aside, I consider myself to be working class even though I earned in excess of 80k last year. I just don't think that the class system is a valid social metric anymore, especially given that opportunities for advancement (both social and wealth) are freely available to all - something that certainly wasn't true a generation or so ago.

Meltdown_2

dunstonh wrote: »

The outcry of the removal of the 10p tax band is farcical. Some are better off, some are worse off but the lower paid are not worse off by the amounts being quoted in the media because of the increase in personal allowances (especially for over 65s) and tax credits etc.

I'm not sure what "amounts being quoted in the media" you are referring to, but the lower paid can be worse off by up to £174 p.a. after allowing for the increase in personal allowances. People under-65 are worse off than over-65s; did the Treasury just forget this group?
There are a number of reasons that prevent many poorly-paid working people from getting working tax credit. And those trying to survive on interest from a small amount of savings also do not qualify for tax credits.
These groups of people might also find the situation farcical, but as other posters have said, they are not laughing ...