Budget 2015: Osborne vs. the Economy

lol, when you resort to throwing around insults you've already lost

I never insulted you in anyway. You have a lot of growing to in my own opinion.
That is not a insult, that is a observation. Anyway..back on topic.

I do hope the single parents trying to make ends meet don't stop work and go on the dole. But I wouldn't blame them if they did.
 
I never insulted you in anyway. You have a lot of growing to in my own opinion.
That is not a insult, that is a observation. Anyway..back on topic.

I do hope the single parents trying to make ends meet don't stop work and go on the dole. But I wouldn't blame them if they did.

you seem to get very confused, you've copied and pasted something from a BBC article and then gotten rather worked up about single parents...
 
If you want to pop over to mumsnet to hear how the single mothers of three children are being persecuted by the evil Tory government....

Half of them are claiming they are loosing £8k + a year, why the hell was the government giving this money out in the first place, it just gives these mouth breathers more incentive to breed...
 
If you want to pop over to mumsnet to hear how the single mothers of three children are being persecuted by the evil Tory government....

Half of them are claiming they are loosing £8k + a year, why the hell was the government giving this money out in the first place, it just gives these mouth breathers more incentive to breed...

Mumsnet types all seem to think their kids will grow up to be doctors and lawyers and won't accept that the vast majority will grow up to be net tax takers.

They'll tell you their kids will be "paying for your pension" with the gumption of someone who's just thrown their savings into a pyramid scheme.
 
Someone explain exactly what is happening with buy to let.
Currently if save i have a mortgage interest each month of 200, and i collect rent of 300, then 100 is seen as profit for the basis of tax, assuming rates/insurance/agency fees ar discounted.
Are they sliding scale the amount of mortgage interest one is allowed to claim as deduction, in a 75/50/25% fashion over three years?
So the 200 if the value remains at 200, counts as 150/100/50? Then what? Nothing? Or this twenty percent they previous spoke of?
I assume the previous years total expenditure still applies, so your net loss is still carried forward until the overall entity makes a profit?
 
"basically"! show me someone like the IFS that say MOST people are better off.

You know the worst stat, the family three kids blah blah is all future set?
Those kids haven't been born yet.
They said a new claim.
So they will not be worse off, they will be just exactly the same, unless they have kids, in which case they will still be the same, they just wont be having free money thrown at them.

I had no idea the welfare state paid just as much as they do in child tax credits, this area of the welfare system is unknown to me. I know realise why so many single mothers i encounter work nine hours per week.
 
Someone explain exactly what is happening with buy to let.
Currently if save i have a mortgage interest each month of 200, and i collect rent of 300, then 100 is seen as profit for the basis of tax, assuming rates/insurance/agency fees ar discounted.
Are they sliding scale the amount of mortgage interest one is allowed to claim as deduction, in a 75/50/25% fashion over three years?
So the 200 if the value remains at 200, counts as 150/100/50? Then what? Nothing? Or this twenty percent they previous spoke of?
I assume the previous years total expenditure still applies, so your net loss is still carried forward until the overall entity makes a profit?

if you're a buy to let landlord you'll get tax relief for the mortgage interest, this will only be applied at the lower rate of tax now

so your example highlighting the profit works still for a lower rate tax payer, but not any more for a higher rate tax payer, they'll not get full tax relief on the interest they pay
 
Some of the budget points were being discussed on QT tonight, and it really makes my blood boil. It's like the whole audience is just completely irrational and everything comes back to "tax the banks" or other cheap jabs.
 
Some of the budget points were being discussed on QT tonight, and it really makes my blood boil. It's like the whole audience is just completely irrational and everything comes back to "tax the banks" or other cheap jabs.

And as if they aren't being taxed already :/

Osborne's already had to back off a bit on that front, but I guess it's an easy target right now.
 
Some of the budget points were being discussed on QT tonight, and it really makes my blood boil. It's like the whole audience is just completely irrational and everything comes back to "tax the banks" or other cheap jabs.

That woman on the far right (postitionally although also politically) got on my nuts. When discussing degrees she brought up the Daily mail myth of students getting a degree in 'David Beckham' :rolleyes:

She's supposed to be a knowledgeable representative of society, If she did even the most basic of research she would have know there is no such degree available.

In reality ONE university offered a single MODULE as part of its sociology and sports science degrees that covered the rise of football from an unpaid hobby in the 17th century to a global billion-pound market now. It mentions Beckham as a mere example of someone who can make millions from something that gained the best players nowt a hundred and so years' ago.
 
Some of the budget points were being discussed on QT tonight, and it really makes my blood boil. It's like the whole audience is just completely irrational and everything comes back to "tax the banks" or other cheap jabs.

maybe they missed that that was actually in the budget, additional 8% charge on bank profits on top of corporation tax

I mean he has actually included a lot of the stereotypical moans - he's targeted non doms (taxing 'the rich') and buy to let investors... and people (business owners and contractors) paying themselves through dividends.

and he's taxed 'the bankers'

and he's raising the minimum wage...
 
How do people think its fair to take the most amount of money away from poor working families ? The way its going to be set up, someone who has never worked a day in their life will be better off than someone working trying their best to make something of them selves..

Either poor workers will get their pay rise or they'll be forced onto the bread line, forced out of work if it doesn't pay to work anymore..
 
maybe they missed that that was actually in the budget, additional 8% charge on bank profits on top of corporation tax

I mean he has actually included a lot of the stereotypical moans - he's targeted non doms (taxing 'the rich') and buy to let investors... and people (business owners and contractors) paying themselves through dividends.

and he's taxed 'the bankers'

and he's raising the minimum wage...

Well yes - I was making the point the program is just totally unwatchable now because too many people in the audience are making ridiculous, irrational points and aren't challenged on them.
 
That woman on the far right (postitionally although also politically) got on my nuts. When discussing degrees she brought up the Daily mail myth of students getting a degree in 'David Beckham' :rolleyes:

She's supposed to be a knowledgeable representative of society, If she did even the most basic of research she would have know there is no such degree available.

In reality ONE university offered a single MODULE as part of its sociology and sports science degrees that covered the rise of football from an unpaid hobby in the 17th century to a global billion-pound market now. It mentions Beckham as a mere example of someone who can make millions from something that gained the best players nowt a hundred and so years' ago.

Didn't someone also make the point about there being so many people doing law degrees that most would have little or no chance of getting a job in law?
 
Didn't someone also make the point about there being so many people doing law degrees that most would have little or no chance of getting a job in law?

That's probably true though, it is when it comes to Forensic Science where 3 times as many people study it than there are jobs to accommodate their skills.

Personally I would make degrees that cover skill shortages/vital knowledge free based on blind educational performance (ergo not what school you went to or much much your parents can pay) but then other students can then pay if they want to do the course.

I don't think there should be a unconditional right to higher education.
 
Back
Top Bottom