Budget 2015: Osborne vs. the Economy

didn't notice this one before:

14. Clamping down on nuisance calls from claims management companies
The amount that can be charged by claims management companies – such as those that encourage claims for payment protection insurance (PPI) or personal injury insurance – will be capped, reducing nuisance calls to potential customers.
Click to expand...

good way to reduce nuance calls, just start cutting off their revenue

am pretty pleased with this budget overall, the government is actually making a lot of good decisions
 
We can't stop people from having kids if they want.. we aren't an oppressive state. But a 'soft cap' at two is correct really, we need to cap the population expansion.

If people want to have large families and can afford to do so, it's still up to them. But the official recommendation is right to be set at two, IMO.

With regards to the VED, it might be good for the environment to set this against CO2, which I'm all for. But the luxury tax just seems bizarre, as it isn't linked to CO2. Just gouging for the sake of it.
 
Mr Jack said:
*headdesk*

No. We're saying that the state should support its people when they fall on hard times and - especially - that no child should suffer because of their parents misfortunes.
Click to expand...

Child benefit (or family allowance as it was in my day) was completely universal up to 2013 and still is to anyone on less than £60k. It's not a poverty based benefit but a perceived "right" regardless of circumstance and the cuts to it so far have consisted of stopping it for people earning twice as much as everyone else (so not an attack on the poor) and now for people who CHOOSE to have a third or more child.

When I referred to people who argue against CB cuts essentially saying "why should I have to finance my own child" I meant the ones who campaigned against the 2013 cap. They were literally fighting for people doing well for themselves to continue to have their children's lives financed by the rest of society.
 
Last edited:
BuffetSlayer said:
So a blanket £140 VED for nearly all cars creates that pressure? I don't think so. Nor will manufacturers because the majority of car users are not going to rush out an buy electric vehicles which are a niche market, so their sales will not really be effected.

This policy decision will halt that downward pressure if anything and just cost motorists more in the process.
Click to expand...

Um, that seems to be what I was arguing?
 
ubersonic said:
If they have more children than they can afford to raise without requiring handouts from other people, then they are free to give the extra child up for adoption (as is normal in almost every country and was in this one before it became benefitworld).
Click to expand...

You want to condemn children to going into the adoption system because one of their parents dies, loses their job, abandons their partner and family for a new love, takes on care responsibilities for their parents or starts suffering from long term sickness or a hundred of the other disasters that can affect one's life? You disgust me. And the kind of society you advocate disgusts me. We're one of the richest countries in the world: we can and should do better.

You keep talking about "afford to raise" as if people's circumstances are constant when, in fact, the overwhelming vast majority of people claiming benefits do so for a short period of time. Things change, people who could perfectly well support their children end up - through no fault of their own - in circumstances where they cannot still afford them. The state has an absolute moral obligation to step in and support both the family and the children in these circumstances.
 
Mr Jack said:
Um, that seems to be what I was arguing?
Click to expand...

Yes - which is why I said it was never about the environment. The environment was an excuse for the government to get loads of tax out of people because at the time the efficiency of engines was appalling. Unfortunately for they government they under estimated just how quickly manufacturers would catch up.

Now that the "won't someone think of the environment!?" excuse does not wash they have to think of another excuse to take your money off you.

Like I said originally, CO2 based VED bands were never about saving the environment, it was just an excuse, and this proposed change clearly shows they couldn't care less about continued environmental improvements (just like they couldn't care less in 2005 - but the shoes fit so they wore them).
 
Last edited:
BuffetSlayer said:
Yes - which is why I said it was never about the environment. The environment was an excuse for the government to get loads of tax out of people because at the time the efficiency of engines was appalling. Unfortunately for they government the under estimated just how quickly manufacturers would catch up.

Now that the "won't someone think of the environment!?" excuse does not wash they have to think of another excuse to take your money off you.

Like I said originally, CO2 based VED bands were never about saving the environment, it was just an excuse, and this proposed change clearly shows they couldn't care less about continued environmental improvements (just like they couldn't care less in 2005 - but the shoes fit so they wore them).
Click to expand...

Yep, I've been saying that for at least 3 years....

estebanrey - 5th Jul 2012 said:
My point is, the whole "it's based on emissions" thing has only been in force since 2005 so the cyclist argument that they shouldn't pay on that basis is a very new argument.

The 'I don't pollute and therefore shouldn't have to pay' line ignores the real spirit of VED and the current fad for making all taxes based on 'green' markers where possible.

Once older, more polluting cars start coming off the roads and the current way of apportioning rates starts to lose money, it will go back to a system not based on emissions again and no doubt there will be no duty for cyclists (so what will be your excuse then?).
Click to expand...

I knew I'd be proved right eventually :D
 
Last edited:
Mr Jack said:
You keep talking about "afford to raise" as if people's circumstances are constant when, in fact, the overwhelming vast majority of people claiming benefits do so for a short period of time. Things change, people who could perfectly well support their children end up - through no fault of their own - in circumstances where they cannot still afford them. The state has an absolute moral obligation to step in and support both the family and the children in these circumstances.
Click to expand...

and it does... there are reasonable limits though, having a whole bunch of kids is just irresponsible if you're that at risk and have no provision to support yourself if you fall on hard times

frankly having more than 2 is a bit irresponsible in general, but things happen - sometimes people get twins/triplets etc.. (i believe there is allowance for that) sometimes people really wanted a girl or a boy but had two of the other initially... but they're going to have to accept that they're taking a risk

what isn't acceptable is breeding a whole bunch of kids, with no means of paying for their upbringing and expecting the rest of us to pay for it
 
BuffetSlayer said:
Like I said originally, CO2 based VED bands were never about saving the environment, it was just an excuse, and this proposed change clearly shows they couldn't care less about continued environmental improvements (just like they couldn't care less in 2005 - but the shoes fit so they wore them).
Click to expand...

I personally think the change in VED is a great move. It taxes the people who can afford to buy new cars (and more so those that can afford to buy new expensive cars (Something which is certainly not "protecting the rich"))

There's a lot more to pollution that CO2 emissions. The fact that a big BMW 5 series diesel only cost about £30 to tax was ridiculous. As is the fact my Alfa Romeo only costs £30 to tax.
 
Mr Jack said:
You want to condemn children to going into the adoption system because [i[blah blah blah[/i]
Click to expand...

Not really, but I want to pay for them even less.


Mr Jack said:
You disgust me.
Click to expand...

I care even less about that.


Mr Jack said:
We're one of the richest countries in the world: we can and should do better.
Click to expand...

This country is home to some of the richest people and corporations in the world, the country itself is not rich, and asking people struggling with austerity to pay for others to raise large families is wrong, especially when the people being asked are often not having children themselves because they cannot afford it.
 
do_ron_ron said:
What a surprise, the poorest gets hardest hit and the rich benefit most.
Click to expand...

that is more likely to hit the richest... the poorest earn benefits and those above them are PAYE

how many of the 'poorest' do you think fill out self assessment forms to the point where they underpay tax by thousands thus warranting a bank account raid?
 
Mr Jack said:
You want to condemn children to going into the adoption system because one of their parents dies, loses their job, abandons their partner and family for a new love, takes on care responsibilities for their parents or starts suffering from long term sickness.
Click to expand...

It appears that some on these forums forget how easy it can be to fall on hard times. There can be a shocking lack of empathy here.

ubersonic said:
This country is home to some of the richest people and corporations in the world, the country itself is not rich, and asking people struggling with austerity to pay for others to raise large families is wrong, especially when the people being asked are often not having children themselves because they cannot afford it.
Click to expand...

People can say that about a lot of taxation areas. Why should a healthy person pay towards expensive treatment for a disabled person? Why should somebody who doesn't drive have their tax go towards the roads?

Personally I have not one issue with some of my tax going towards making sure children aren't raised in poverty.
 
LordSplodge said:
It appears that some on these forums forget how easy it can be to fall on hard times. There can be a shocking lack of empathy here.
Click to expand...

nah just a sense of perspective... you fall on hard times, fine... there is a safety net

but no one accidentally has 5 kids in succession, that is just being irresponsible (multiple births in one go are excluded AFAIK)

it isn't a retrospective measure either, it will only apply to kids born after some time in 2017
 
dowie said:
but no one accidentally has 5 kids in succession, that is just being irresponsible (multiple births in one go are excluded AFAIK)

it isn't a retrospective measure either, it will only apply to kids born after some time in 2017
Click to expand...

Most people don't have five kids, that's just a stereotype brought on by programs like 'Benefits Street' that people seem to swallow as factual.

Hypothetical: Woman has a twins, husband dies. She meets a new man. They settle down, marry and have a baby. That's three kids, thus in breach of the policy.

In this scenario do we say that the couple can't have a child because - to quote OCUK - 'they can't afford it' - that is fairly harsh.
 
we don't say they can't have a child, it is their choice as to whether they can realistically afford a third child and whether they can budget for contingencies such as one of them being out of work etc...

if people want to have more than two children then fine, it is up to you to budget for that, the rest of us shouldn't have to subsidise it

most people have two or less kids, this change doesn't affect most people... and as it isn't retrospective the people it does affect will have some choice in the matter
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
we don't say they can't have a child, it is their choice as to whether they can realistically afford a third child and whether they can budget for contingencies such as one of them being out of work etc...

if people want to have more than two children then fine, it is up to you to budget for that, the rest of us shouldn't have to subsidise it
Click to expand...

But it is OK to arbitrarily 'subsidise' up to two children? Change my scenario above to the second pregnancy being an accident (and that happens no matter how careful people are) and then what? Oh sorry Mr and Mrs Smith your child is going into care. Too bad.

People should not be able to just have kids to stay on benefits, and I doubt anybody would agree with that, but it is heading dangerous close to eugenics and - more troublesome - risking the health and well being of children. Children who have no control over what circumstances they are born in to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom