- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,094
- Reaction score
- 796
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
A Political Thread
- Thread starter Draggs
- Start date
- Status
Sorry I'm in a middle income family by that definition (admittedly with no kids yet but I also know how much expendable money me and my wife have...).
I look at all those and see places where they can save money
£600 a month on cars! £300 on going out! 250 a month on Christmas and birthdays!
If your spend all but 200 quid of one person earnings on a childminder you have to question why they bother working.
It's not 'easy' but its laughable any of those families are struggling.
Point being those families can afford more and choose to live with their means of luxuries they wish to have at 50k/year you can't do everything you want and be awash with cash at the end of the month. However all of them chose to spend money on different things that nobody actually needs.
For instance to save ourselves money for things we'd rather do, we don't buy clothes unless we need them, we run one (second hand) car that is now 11 years old. In turn we can afford to put that money elsewhere.
For instance to save ourselves money for things we'd rather do, we don't buy clothes unless we need them, we run one (second hand) car that is now 11 years old. In turn we can afford to put that money elsewhere.
Im middle income!
They are also missing out tax credits which most of those families will get along with child benefit.
When you have a young family you have to cut your cloth accordingly, overseas holiday? no camping in Devon, fancy presents at friends weddings? No they get a toaster, flash 4x4 cars? no a 2006 Laguna (good for camping loads of room in the boot), Gym membership? trainers and pavement for the father of 3 im afraid, going out? well yes me and Mrs Tallshort try and go for a meal or a night out at least once a month you just have to plan these things.
Last edited:
Pretty much how my parents managed it. We were never wanting as children we went through good times and lean times usually dependant on if my Mum had a job or not, we were on probably equal footing to these families if you take into account inflation. My wife's family had even less money than these families and they managed pretty okay.
So again raise taxes for those who can afford them so we can have a decent NHS rather than having to talk about closing hospitals to save money.
I think once upon a time the maths was raise the higher tax threshold (40%ers which none of these families are in) by 1% and you could scrap tuition fees and have money left over. Do that on the lower thresholds and you talking 20-30 quid for these families to pay.
I do utterly find it appalling when people about being money pinching and they have 2 new cars on the the driveway....or similar.
The elephant in the room is that there would be no need for cuts and raising the majority of the population's taxes, if the government actually wanted to.
Sort out the banks, distribute wealth equally, tax the corporations.
Sort out the banks, distribute wealth equally, tax the corporations.
And watch the pigs fly.....
austingtir
First XV
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,710
- Reaction score
- 2
Wait whats this!? Its happening....
http://m.chron.com/news/houston-tex...ist-Quanell-X-has-endorsed-Donald-9186160.php
http://m.chron.com/news/houston-tex...ist-Quanell-X-has-endorsed-Donald-9186160.php
austingtir
First XV
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,710
- Reaction score
- 2
Id like to but with the chances of Donald wearing a bullet before this is all said and done I think id give it a miss.
The right's greatest achievement is to make people think that taxes are bad for the general person.
I'll drop this off right here:
To explain: blue is income before tax and benefit, orange is after tax and benefit, red is after tax and benefit and including services (e.g. NHS).
People in the bottom 60% are generally better off after tax and benefits. People in the 60-80% are only slightly worse off. People in the top 20% are the only ones hit hard, but they have so much money, they ought be.
That being said:
As above, blue is original, orange is after tax and benefits, red includes services. It's another demonstration of how young people are utterly screwed. These people less than 30, often with children, mostly without any assets, are hit by taxes far more than they receive back.
Whilst I disagree with those DM interviews, I absolutely do understand the pressures on costs of raising a child these days. Nappies/formula for just one child can set families back by £20+ per week alone. Childcare is offensively expensive. Some are criticising the people in the interviews for not being stay-at-home parents, to offset the cost of childcare. But if a person takes several years out of work to raise children, they can see their future earnings permanently decreased. At the same time, people shouldn't be entirely working through their child's life, even if only because breastfeeding is certainly good for a child. I don't know the full solution, but we should at the very least have free childcare from a younger age.
Source: Effects of Taxes and Benefits (http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...fitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2015)
The right's greatest achievement is to make people think that taxes are bad for the general person.
I'll drop this off right here:
To explain: blue is income before tax and benefit, orange is after tax and benefit, red is after tax and benefit and including services (e.g. NHS).
People in the bottom 60% are generally better off after tax and benefits. People in the 60-80% are only slightly worse off. People in the top 20% are the only ones hit hard, but they have so much money, they ought be.
That being said:
As above, blue is original, orange is after tax and benefits, red includes services. It's another demonstration of how young people are utterly screwed. These people less than 30, often with children, mostly without any assets, are hit by taxes far more than they receive back.
Whilst I disagree with those DM interviews, I absolutely do understand the pressures on costs of raising a child these days. Nappies/formula for just one child can set families back by £20+ per week alone. Childcare is offensively expensive. Some are criticising the people in the interviews for not being stay-at-home parents, to offset the cost of childcare. But if a person takes several years out of work to raise children, they can see their future earnings permanently decreased. At the same time, people shouldn't be entirely working through their child's life, even if only because breastfeeding is certainly good for a child. I don't know the full solution, but we should at the very least have free childcare from a younger age.
Source: Effects of Taxes and Benefits (http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...fitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2015)
I agree.......that hurt a bit
So it is a bit interesting this Ireland and Apple V EU thing.
From what I gather
EU orders Apple to pay Ireland 13 billion euros to Ireland
But Ireland are desperate for this not to happen becuase
1) They have a lot of America company connections due to their tax laws and this threatens their relationship with those countries which could damage jobs and the economy
2) the majority of that money Apple would pay would go to the EU and IMF anyway not the Irish gov
Is this about right?
In which case if Apple do have to pay Ireland COULD really suffer due to it?
From what I gather
EU orders Apple to pay Ireland 13 billion euros to Ireland
But Ireland are desperate for this not to happen becuase
1) They have a lot of America company connections due to their tax laws and this threatens their relationship with those countries which could damage jobs and the economy
2) the majority of that money Apple would pay would go to the EU and IMF anyway not the Irish gov
Is this about right?
In which case if Apple do have to pay Ireland COULD really suffer due to it?
Wrong in a way and right in way.
Ireland are appealing because yeah they fear this could effect them when trying to convince new American investors as well as this setting a precedent.
I understand Ireland will keep majority of money but again it could come at cost of jobs and investment which in long term when you fact in welfare would be a lot more the €13billion.
Nope it been stated that all tax money from it will go off toward paying off Irelands debt.
Possibly but its to Irish state. But as I said it would hurt economy
No sympathy for either to be honest. The likes of Apple and Amazon have been setting up shop in Ireland then trading in the UK and other EU countries while paying **** all in tax while small and middle sized companies based in the countries they actually trade in get hammered. It was a short term policy from the Irish goverment undercutting everyone for the jobs knowing these firms were paying **** all to trade elsewhere and it was just greed from the likes of Apple. Glad the EU are cracking down on it.
Shame on Ireland for race-to-the-bottom tax policies and shame on companies such as Apple for abusing it.
But IMO tax havens will always exist until we start putting in some global rules on tax. Globalisation has left our archaic tax policies unfit for the modern day. I'd like to see some convention that targets countries and companies for immoral tax practices. If e.g. Apple and Amazon risked an embargo by the biggest countries for tax evasion, they will quickly correct their practices. I also don't see why companies pay tax on profits and not sales.
But IMO tax havens will always exist until we start putting in some global rules on tax. Globalisation has left our archaic tax policies unfit for the modern day. I'd like to see some convention that targets countries and companies for immoral tax practices. If e.g. Apple and Amazon risked an embargo by the biggest countries for tax evasion, they will quickly correct their practices. I also don't see why companies pay tax on profits and not sales.
It is called VAT......that will set you off again nicely!
- Status
Similar threads
