Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 8,010
- Location
- Wiltshire
That reminds me, need to iron my shirt.
The Budget™ 2009
- Thread starter cheets64
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Indeed it is but Mr Smith might just think twice before putting his fist through a window next time he is drunk.
Does some Asian country/ies run a similar scheme. I am trying to remember where I read about it.
Firstly - they pay all the rent if you live in council accomodation - yes everyones situation is different and they should be judged upon it. If someone has worked and payed in tax for 20 years and needs help to pay the mortgage then they should get it - no question in my opinion.
Internet is a luxury not a neccesity - head down the library for that - there £15 a month saved. Clothing isn't needed every month it's a one off and there are charity shops so that helps. People with children get allowances for that (though why myself and my wife don't get any benefits for not having a kid is crazy as we're not using services such as health for them and not getting child support so surely we should be allowed a better tax allowance).
If you've run up debts and are fearing the bailiffs then that suggests you've lived beyond your means - sorry no sympathy really. Go see the CAB for advice. Hell if you've been made redundant and then can't pay that's a different story but, especially now, everyone should be reviewing what they can and can't afford.
And not all families on benefits are this 'fearing bailiffs', living from day to day with no money, staying in because they can't afford to catch the bus, no hope, no life people that you make them out to be. Whenever I visit mates and go for a lunchtime beer there are the same old faces in there day to day (if you go into Wetherspoons in Hanley you'll know what I mean) they are all drinking at 10AM everyday. I remember a few of them were so happy that it was giro day and then started boasting about how long they'd been on benefits. That's the kind of people that annoy me.
To sum it all up if you're on benefits and hate it then you will do something about it - hell you'd mop up toilet floors if you had to the fact that there is so many people on benefits (especially a couple of years ago when the economy was growing) suggests that some people like it there.
M.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
The funniest ive had come into work are people that are claiming benefits and actually say "they cant afford to work".
You mean it's funny because it's often true?
The problem is you don't think when you are drunk so charging for treatment would not reduce these injuries.
Financial penalties means less money for drinking.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
There will be exceptions without doubt, but often the most painful thing for the recipient is being hit in the pocket.
It may not reduce injuries but it will still put much needed funds back into AandE departments.
The cost of drunken violence and injury is staggering, I have no doubt.
Unless a person has absolutely no money left at the month I really can't see a few accidents a year having any effect on alcohol consumption.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
It may have more of an effect on them thinking twice before putting their fist through a window ? I highlight the word may.
What on earth makes you think the CEBR research is flawed?
First of all the research is saying that over the time period revenue will be 8-9 billion higher. Note that this tells you nothing for the tax deficit.
The level of flaws in your comment I can't be bothered to explain. But lets just say that there is corporate taxation and income taxation to consider, the actual elasticity of demand reaction and also the fact that they've looked at a yard stick of the last recession.
If they've used proper econometric methods, they have controls for the interest rate. Also it makes very little difference of whether consumers or firms get the money. The money always ends up with consumers be that shareholders or your high street shoppers.
Without seeing their actual research, there is no way you can say it is flawed.
Once again its a case of internet idiots claiming to know better than very well qualified economists.
Last edited:
The full report who wish to read it
http://www.cebr.com/Resources/CEBR/Impact of the VAT cut.pdf
Again the econometric data isn't there though (possibly none done, going by the style of their analysis). They do vaguely consider the factors I mentioned. I would like to have seen more specific information though. Also they take into account of price reductions in their considerations.
http://www.cebr.com/Resources/CEBR/Impact of the VAT cut.pdf
Again the econometric data isn't there though (possibly none done, going by the style of their analysis). They do vaguely consider the factors I mentioned. I would like to have seen more specific information though. Also they take into account of price reductions in their considerations.
Last edited:
The fact that they called for a 5% drop in vat makes the article biased, they are hardly going to write an article saying "we were totally wrong" after calling for a tax decrease. At this stage all they've done is estimate, as I said before, until the growth caused by the vat cut exceeds the deficit then it's too soon to say it's been good value for money, or that it was better than other available options.
Last edited:
Why not? Think tanks adjust their predictions all the time. The idea that they would cling onto previous claims resulting in embarrassment later on is simply unfounded and is speculation. Seeing as they make money on being correct and having a good reputation, it makes it even less likely. Are they now simply not allowed to analyse the situation till the year is over? You cannot dismiss it flippantly but explain why it is wrong. Something you have failed to do.
No they've had data for a couple of months.
They are predicting a net benefit with logic which seems reasonable. You cannot wait for things to happen before making fiscal and monetary policy. It is all about predictions. So I don't understand your objection. Explain to me why their analysis is wrong or give me evidence of intentional falsification.
Last edited:
It's human nature unfortunately, throughout history people have doctored research and made false claims for money/fame, an example being the field of molecular transistors where research was fabricated, that's why I'm always skeptical about research where there is a vested interest, moreso when it isn't published as it isn't subject to peer review. It's always a possiblity you can't rule out.
Their report lacks any mention of factors like the boe interest rates which are naturally going to give people more money to spend as their mortgage rates decrease, this will have an obvious effect on retailer revenue. To give evidence of falsifcation is impossible without even seeing the research.
Woosh! Worst comeback ever
Poor people have Internet access too.
Sorry, think I was confused by him using the same argument but just with more words.
Just because I earn more somehow I can magically afford a higher percentage of tax
There's nothing magic about it - you can afford to pay a higher rate because you earn more. I don't see why that's so hard to understand? In case it matters, I pay tax in the 40% tax bracket too.
What if I have a bigger mortgage to pay for, nicer cars? Should I not have these becuase I should be paying more tax?
I already pay more tax than those not earning as much - why skew it even more?
At stupid as it sounds that is a very real thing.
For example my wife works part time as a travel agent, she gets paid a basic wage and has the chance to make commission on holidays she sells, this is almost impossible as the targets she is set are very high as a ratio to the hours she works.
If she didnt work she would earn £30 per month less due to benefits than she does now, but she would save a fortune as she wouldnt need to pay travel costs, childcare etc etc.
She works because she likes to work, simple as that....it allows her to get away from kids for a while and lets her catch up and socialise with work colleagues.