Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

The Budget 2009

Status
Not open for further replies.
I came up with a fantastic way to get people into work last night.

1. You can only buy booze if you're working.

2. You can only buy fags if you're working.

3. You can only go on holiday abroad if you're working.

Seeing as I can't afford to do any of the above and work (I still do them (minus No. 2), but I can't afford them), yet everyone on the dole around me can - I reckon that it would soon have people flocking to do any job!

I also reckon that we should stop giving people on the dole anything other than a simple bit of "pocket money". I get £20 a week pocket money out of the household budget - it's my reward for working.

If we supplied people out of work with a kind of ration card system, where they could get an allotted amount of basic (healthy) food each week (depending on the number of kids, etc.) then a little bit of pocket money for bus fares to job interviews, etc - we'd soon see a few things.

1. More people taking ANY job available. There are plenty of jobs out there, it's just people don't want to demean themselves cleaning, serving at McDonalds or driving buses.

2. The health of the nation would soar! If people could only buy with the ration books healthy food (fruit, veg, etc) then people would be forced to eat healthily. McDonalds and the chippy would suddenly become a treat, rather than the norm!

3. No more Trishia or Jeremy Kyle

;)

Slayed and Marc are right about the 50% thing though, remember, it's a relatively small increase, on what you earn over £150k a year - your pre-150K a year is still the same as it was.

However, it looks like they're making an effort to get at the big spenders (have you noticed that the spin for the last few weeks has been directed at the big earners, and those with juicy bonuses)? Another way of trying to get people onside for an election.
 
Many of us would have been better off years ago.

You could earn £12,000 tax free and then pay 33% on anything above that, when I worked it out I was better off by £6,000 a year. So the system of 27% tax not work for me as my allowence is £6,000.

I dont know why people thought they were better off under the system the last government bought in. I think people looked at the % being lower so thought they would be better off.
 
Come on now, your making assumptions about the nature of people on benefits here...

I'm not completely on benefits but i'm getting completely screwed over for it.. It's hard....

I dont drive or drink much or smoke at all.... But Rob drives and that is going to hit us quite a bit...
 
Lucy, Sharon was on benefits when we got together. Once there was extra support (ie me), she started working at McDonalds - with her brand new first class honours degree in IT.

It's a pride in working thing, and because we did everything right, she had to work there, and we were vastly out of pocket (due to the fact I worked).

I'm not saying the situation is the same for everyone. I know you work and that there are a lot of people out there who want to work.

The issue, generally, are the people who have no intention of working. Around us, it's mostly people who see children as an extra £200 a month in their pocket - not something to love and cherish.

It was also a joke :lol:

However, I am aggrieved that a couple across the road who have never worked, earn more than me in benefits, have things for their kids we could never afford, 40 inch plasma screen on their wall, computers and laptops, then smoke and drink. It's not fair on those of us who work, or those of us who want to work and don't want to be immoral and screw over the system.
 
I agree with that....

But there is legislation at the moment as well that by 2010 any parent whose child is 7 or over won't be able to claim income support on those grounds...

So they'll have no choice but to go on jobseekers and therefore be actually seeking work...

Luckily i'll be living elsewhere then, won't be eligable anyway because Rob works and i'm planning to pick up a few more hours :p

It's annoying that because of those people there is such a negative veiw on benefits though... I hate being on them...

Lol the news won't shut up about the budget... what happened to all the news about penguins being knighted and stuff like that? :( i want some happy news...
 
furie said:
I came up with a fantastic way to get people into work last night.

1. You can only buy booze if you're working.

2. You can only buy fags if you're working.

3. You can only go on holiday abroad if you're working.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that'll definitely: earn voters, create no divide between the middle and lower classes, solve a variety of social problems... :wink:

Slayed and Marc are right about the 50% thing though, remember, it's a relatively small increase, on what you earn over £150k a year - your pre-150K a year is still the same as it was.

However, it looks like they're making an effort to get at the big spenders (have you noticed that the spin for the last few weeks has been directed at the big earners, and those with juicy bonuses)? Another way of trying to get people onside for an election.
Click to expand...

It's just labour being old labour, I'm hardly suprised.

However, although yeah its 'only' for whatever you earn over 150,000, you're equally working in a high powered profession where the risks and influence of your job are WORTH that extra money you're earning... I don't think it's fair at all to say 'they have enough money already, how about we just take more' is a valid argument at all- they earn more for a reason. Taking this away defeats the point of said incentives.

As soon as I'm out of Uni and with a firm, if Labour's still in power and pursuing this route, I'll be looking to get out of the UK ASAP- I'd rather be rewarded for being a professional in a field, rather than being stripped of my extra earnings. And then watch every other professional follow suit. Don't suggest this is a light thing. Especially when moving to a better economy (or at least the better side of the exchange rate) would probably suit them anyway...



And with regards to smoking, nobody NEEDS to be majorly affected by the increase... It's a luxury, not a necessity.
 
It affects 1% of the population of the country. If we lose that 1%, then there are almost 7% of the population out of work to replace them ;)

Anyway, the grass is always greener...
 
furie said:
It affects 1% of the population of the country. If we lose that 1%, then there are almost 7% of the population out of work to replace them ;)

Anyway, the grass is always greener...
Click to expand...


IF you're earning over 150k - there's no way you'd be stupid enough to have it so you're taxed on all of it. There are ways around taxes.

Besides.. just did some calculations... if you earn 150k in the uk, you're paying about £55k tax next year

The equivalent in canada ($300k) - i'd be paying $112k - about 55k GBP

cant find info on america...

But my point being, they're no better off elsewhere. In fact, with the amount of money america has been blowing on their economy.. they're going to be in a MUCH worse tax hell in the years to come...


Source:
http://listentotaxman.com/index.php?c=1 ... =150000&vw[]=yr&vw[]=mth&vw[]=wk

http://listentotaxman.com/index.php?c=1 ... =150000&vw[]=yr&vw[]=mth&vw[]=wk
 
This all makes me laugh really. You have your Labour haters and they getting all preachy, shouldn't be taxing more on the rich etc etc etc.
Well, Im sorry but these fat cat bank managers, financial execs and so on should be taxed more from their over the top wages. Those huge wages were paid because apparently they were experts in their field and so on. If they had done the job (that they are paid rather handsomely for no less) properly the country wouldn't be in this pigging mess in the first place!

So yeah, Labour have probably lost the next election, for what though, for the conservatives to come back in and continue their old policy of "the rich get richer and the poor can go get stuffed coz we don't care, let them get poorer". How's that for a fast track back a Victorian state class system. Yeah, that is going to help! Besides, the conservatives will not be able to help this time around.... why? Because they sold off the UK assets on their last stretch. What's gonna be their quick fix for popularity this time around?

On the flipside though, it wouldn't matter what political party was in power. The public was always going to hang the chancellor up by the balls at this budget because money is so sensitive right now. Unless anyone is honestly trying to convince me that the Conservatives would, of course, create a budget that had little doves flying round it that the country would love.... Dream on!
 
Mark said:
This all makes me laugh really. You have your Labour haters and they getting all preachy, shouldn't be taxing more on the rich etc etc etc.
Well, Im sorry but these fat cat bank managers, financial execs and so on should be taxed more from their over the top wages. Those huge wages were paid because apparently they were experts in their field and so on. If they had done the job (that they are paid rather handsomely for no less) properly the country wouldn't be in this pigging mess in the first place!

So yeah, Labour have probably lost the next election, for what though, for the conservatives to come back in and continue their old policy of "the rich get richer and the poor can go get stuffed coz we don't care, let them get poorer". How's that for a fast track back a Victorian state class system. Yeah, that is going to help! Besides, the conservatives will not be able to help this time around.... why? Because they sold off the UK assets on their last stretch. What's gonna be their quick fix for popularity this time around?

On the flipside though, it wouldn't matter what political party was in power. The public was always going to hang the chancellor up by the balls at this budget because money is so sensitive right now. Unless anyone is honestly trying to convince me that the Conservatives would, of course, create a budget that had little doves flying round it that the country would love.... Dream on!
Click to expand...

Never before have I smiled in agreement so much at a post!

A round of applause for Mark and his anti-Victorian class system =D>
 
To be fair, it wasn't really our bankers that screwed everything up, it was all the people borrowing beyond their means. I don't really think the situation has anyone or anything to really, 100% "blame", it just sort of... is.

And I don't think any politician would do anything better, because ALL politicians are idiots :p
 
This is true Ben, but it was the bankers that let these people borrow beyond their means, thus resulting in our current economic position, which sort of makes it largely their fault as well.
 
Exactly. Hence I think it's much more a problem resulting from everyone than anyone in particular.
 
Yay for sense making :p

If you really want to get pedantic though it's actually mass hysteria that is mostly to blame :wink:
 
Well, the mass hysteria is, in large part, driven, by the media and subsequently our own peers. The fact that this drive in a particular mass public opinion comes from the media, which is in itself, a multi million pound industry, is both ironic and amusing to me.

The point is, my spending has not changed, I have not said, oh no, this is more, that is more, i'll save it instead and stop spending completely. I have just continued as normal; spending to my means. This may come and bite me in the arse if the economy does not improve but on the opposite side of the see-saw I am benefiting the economy by not ceasing all spending. Obviously this is all dependance of the ability to spend within your means, and this can only be ensured if your bills and so on do not spiral out of control, but in my eyes; it is all relative.

The reason I mention the bankers was because of the fact it is quite common knowledge that they have bonuses and so on that would make my annual salary look like a days wage and they actually failed to do their job properly. They made investmests with OUR hard earned cash that were reckless and have now backfired, many of which involving the collapse of the American housing market. Naturally, it isn't just bankers that take these (self awarded, may I add) bonuses that eclipse the equivalent of nearly ever CF members annual income and to me it makes more sense that they pay more tax. They have already spent our money once over in risky investments, why should I pay more tax in order to bail them out and sort out their problem. They should pay more tax to rectify the situation. Obviously, I appreciate and respect the fact that this is a generalisation of our financial system and every case is different.

Let's be fair about this, without even taking into account their actual salary, their bonus alone is beyond what many of us earn. They could pay the tax out of their massive bonuses and so on and still have a take home that makes my earnings look like that of a third world homeless tramp. Therefore they have a luxurious lifestyle which naturally, comes with the price tag to boot.
 
marc said:
Many of us would have been better off years ago.

You could earn £12,000 tax free and then pay 33% on anything above that, when I worked it out I was better off by £6,000 a year. So the system of 27% tax not work for me as my allowence is £6,000.

I dont know why people thought they were better off under the system the last government bought in. I think people looked at the % being lower so thought they would be better off.
Click to expand...

I'm a little confused about the percentages and tax free allowance you're stating in this thread. I was under the impression that the tax free allowance in the U.K has always been £11,500 at least for the past few years. Regarding the 33% I used this income after tax calculator: http://www.income-tax.co.uk/calculator/18000 which has broke everything down in regards to what I earn £18,000 annually.

After tax I am left with a take-home wage of £1,294 each month, I will pay 20% tax on my remaining taxable salary. The brackets in the U.K are as followed according the website I just used:

How your tax is calculated
Every person in the UK has a personal tax allowance of £11,500 this financial year (2017-2018), which means that for the first £11,500 that you are earning, you'll pay no tax. That income can be from one or multiple jobs - just don't forget to add all the income sources together. As you can see in the slider above, there are different tax bands. From 0 to £11,500 you'll pay no tax, from £11,500 to £45,000 you'll pay 20% tax, and from £45,000 to £161,500 you'll pay 40% tax.

In the example from our calculator above, you are earning £18,000 a year. 0">Out of this sum, you'll pay the basic rate of 20% tax on £6,500 (£18,000 minus your personal allowance of £11,500): £1,300 basic rate tax will be deducted. Because you are earning below the higher rate tax limit of £45,000, you'll pay no higher rate tax.

A simplified illustration of your tax:



  • You'll pay no tax on the first £11,500 that you're earning.
  • 0">You'll pay £1,300 tax on £6,500 (at 20%)
  • You'll pay no higher rate tax
  • Total tax paid: £1,300


  • Are you using an outside of U.K tax system?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top