My point exactly, they do not. Its purely a big thankyou and begging please vote for us come the next election.
That could have been better spent in some support service for children.
Budget 2018
- Thread starter 233
- Start date
My point exactly, they do not. Its purely a big thankyou and begging please vote for us come the next election.
That could have been better spent in some support service for children.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,591
Why? Why do you have to keep moving up? At what point is enough?
Do you have kids? If so isn't there a balance between giving them a nice life and actually spending quality time with them?
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,124
Because I strive to be more successful and not stop learning? There is no upper limit nor should there be. Unlike the lefties who I met in Uni who wanted everyone to be equal, unfortunately that is not the case.
Kids no, but I enjoy my lifestyle as it is now, and I plan on having my house paid off within 10 years and by that point I should be married with a kid or two, and I can focus on them without worrying about anything.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,591
I can't understand how you can say moving up on the career ladder and earning more money means everybody else not doing that "stops learning"
Some people always want more. Which is fine, always wonder what happens to your mindset when more make you happier.
Im at that point now. On what most might think it's pretty modest income
Yeah but it's addictive as well
...I remember when I was earning 25k in my first job after uni, I said if I ever get to 30k then I'd have more than enough as I thought that was loads...I'm now in six figures and still want more, I don't need more, but there's always that desire to earn more. I guess it depends on your personality but the more you earn, the more you spend as well.I have a son and I always want to earn more for him as well, so I can make sure he's provided for both when I'm here and when I'm not.
Yeah but it's addictive as well
I have a son and I always want to earn more for him as well, so I can make sure he's provided for both when I'm here and when I'm not.
Having more because of your hard work is fine, having more because the government wants your vote is disgusting.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,591
I'm not sure being really wealthy does your kids much good in the long run.
This is completely anecdotal but a lot of the kids I know who were given everything (generally by their parents who had a lot poorer upbringings) are lazy and entitled.
This is completely anecdotal but a lot of the kids I know who were given everything (generally by their parents who had a lot poorer upbringings) are lazy and entitled.
I'm in a similar boat to Steedie, I'd like to be able to set up funds for my kids (when they come along) so that they don't have to worry about student loans etc. I'm not saying they should have everything provided on a plate for them, and they will be expected to do their bit when the time comes, but if you can give them a helping hand then why not?
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,124
Yeah but it's addictive as well
I have a son and I always want to earn more for him as well, so I can make sure he's provided for both when I'm here and when I'm not.
100% spot on with that, I nearly hit 6 figures last year from the crazy amount of OT (the fact I had just become single helped) but boy did the tax man love me, along with SLC it was horrible watching the deductions go up and up each month
I'd potentially support labour, but after McDonnell basically said he'd spend something stupid like £100bn+ on reversing all the cuts made over the last 8 years, which would effectively plummet the country further into debt, i can't see them getting my vote.
Up until 2008 the country spent rather loosely, in a wide variety of areas, money wasn't really a concern. After the financial crash, all sectors had to tighten up and stop spending unnecessary money.
I'd be fine if Labour pledged to loosen the purse springs and fund sectors again/further, but to pledge that they would undo everything is absolute madness.
To be honest, I find it amazing how a couple can have full time jobs, one child, and end up with more money than their combined gross salary due to tax credits and high personal allowance. Something is seriously wrong with the "the system" - either minimum wage is far too low for the family to live without tax credits or we shouldn't be funding people to have kids (or both).
Agreed. I ran the calc and saw how much I'd be better off by and was surprised. I'm not trying to be funny but when we're living in times like these we should be paying more - not less!
The real living wage is far too low to have a family, never mind minimum.
Thats what happens in all governments. Tories buys your vote by letting you keep more of your money if you are wealthy. Labour buys your vote by giving you more of someone else's money. Same thing, different side of the coin.
That was literally my response when reading Strider's reply.
The government will always try and appeal to the masses. It was just like in the last election when Labour pledged to scrap all university tuition fees, way to go to buy all the student votes!
We know exactly what will happen considering what has occurred in the US with regards to tuition fees, it's a temporary measure to keep it off the books, but the reality is it's still ultimately state spending... at some point when the whole thing collapses.
Frankly giving the top 10% a tax break is ******* pointless, economic movement involves everyone being able to spend money, especially the bottom 50%. That economic mobility would eventually make everyone richer, as it has done for the last century, but sure... be biased if y'all so please.
Should tax systems always become ever more progressive? Where would you like it to end up?
Income tax being flat (passive), with extra tax's (active) being productive based on need (environmental, health, security, education whatever) until a situation is resolved.
theyre not, they get (assuming no other influencing factors) £520 more