March Budget 2016

In order to pimp more money into flood defences I see Osborne has raised the levy on insurance premiums.

So the people who suffered in the floods will be hit twice, their premium will go up as will the levy that they inevitably pay.

Shocking.
 
OldCoals said:
In order to pimp more money into flood defences I see Osborne has raised the levy on insurance premiums.

So the people who suffered in the floods will be hit twice, their premium will go up as will the levy that they inevitably pay.

Shocking.
Click to expand...

I couldn't help but find the way he worded that insulting.

Why does he need to "find" money to sort flood defenses by making it up somewhere else, yet right before it, he talks about HS3 ... he didn't have any issues "finding" that money and needing to make it up elsewhere!
 
No1newts said:
I hate labour. As usual making this class warfare.

They say the tax cuts benefit the "rich" more with the higher tax band changes. My pay used to go into the upper band by a small amount, I now save more money. Am I rich? Should I be ashamed of making something of my life?
Click to expand...

Did you see the IFS charts in #426? The richest half quite clearly have benefited more than the poorest (and the richest 20% the most of all groups). I'm not sure what your rant is about.
 
Well of course someone richer will benefit more as you are taxing less on more money = greater gain.

My rant is about them pushing the agenda of taxing more on those who are better off. I'm not talking about mega rich but I bust my **** and the tax cuts are great for me as someone who is just in and around the higher band. Instead of recognising the benefit of those middle class voters who work hard and getting some benefit (and a little goes a long way) they instead focus on "it benefits some rich bloke, let's get rid" and ignore the middle classes once again.
 
joeyjojo said:
Did you see the IFS charts in #426? The richest half quite clearly have benefited more than the poorest (and the richest 20% the most of all groups). I'm not sure what your rant is about.
Click to expand...

That's always going to be the case, but as long as poor people are also improving there's not really a problem. Social mobility should be the focus of left wing parties, ensuring everyone has the chance at success, rather than punishing those who are successful. Poor people in our country still are still quite well off
 
No1newts said:
I hate labour. As usual making this class warfare.

They say the tax cuts benefit the "rich" more with the higher tax band changes. My pay used to go into the upper band by a small amount, I now save more money. Am I rich? Should I be ashamed of making something of my life?

Saying I hate labour is slightly disingenuous, I hate both parties and if someone wanted to win an election they should come in and target the majority (the middle class) and stop making politics a fight about those on the breadline and those who probably own the bread factories whilst the majority of us idiots in the middle who try to make an honest living are ignored and shafted.

********.

/rant
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
OldCoals said:
Why should these people get hit with a double whammy?
Click to expand...

Stop trolling

They chose to live there, they knew the risks or were ignorant enough to not research.

Like people choose to drink or smoke they pay more tax, so?

Taxation is not about fairness. Its about collecting the revenue needed to support the country. Most of the taxes have little bearing on what they will be spent on. Libor fines for example.

People who have a car accident who will see increased premiums will also pay the extra, whats having a car accident got to do with flooding. Nothing, yet the IPT increase will be targetted at improving flood defences.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Stop trolling

They chose to live there, they knew the risks or were ignorant enough to not research.

Like people choose to drink or smoke they pay more tax, so?

Taxation is not about fairness. Its about collecting the revenue needed to support the country. Most of the taxes have little bearing on what they will be spent on. Libor fines for example.

People who have a car accident who will see increased premiums will also pay the extra, whats having a car accident got to do with flooding. Nothing, yet the IPT increase will be targetted at improving flood defences.
Click to expand...

It's not uncommon for a house to be at no historical risk of flooding to become at risk due to developments upstream. In some cases this can be actual flood defences added upriver, which just push the problem down, or otherwise large scale housing or deforestation which increases run-off. It's the government who's responsible for these developments.

Similarly, you may live in an area protected by flood defences, which the government has failed to maintain
 
Spook187 said:
lololol i don't think you understand on how much rain fall we actually had in Cumbria when the floods came, so no were not ignorant, i think you are though for saying such a thing.
Click to expand...

Funny that seeing as I happened to work with the senior underwriters and claims heads of the largest property insurer in the UK at that time. Guess what they said ...

There is a clue, they are called "flood plains", They have been doing it for a very long time. They are and have been known to be a high flood risk for a very long time.

But thats beside the point, you can risk property damage anywhere, its just now more extreme now than it was.
There are no safe places per say, apart from literally the top of mountains (which come with there own risks)
 
cheesyboy said:
It's not uncommon for a house to be at no historical risk of flooding to become at risk due to developments upstream. In some cases this can be actual flood defences added upriver, which just push the problem down, or otherwise large scale housing or deforestation which increases run-off. It's the government who's responsible for these developments.

Similarly, you may live in an area protected by flood defences, which the government has failed to maintain
Click to expand...

Certainly some relevance in this I agree.

But in general the areas with risk have been known for some time, what happens in these scenarios is that the risk goes up (or down potentially somewhere else), but the fundamentals of risk dont move that much.
E.g being within a certain distance of a river, and/or being below or close to the lowest point in an area.
If you look at a modern flood risk map this is pretty much what you will see evidenced, and whilst its being refined its hardly new news.
 
OldCoals said:
Why should these people get hit with a double whammy?
Click to expand...

Who else is going to pay for it.
It's a small amount, everyone pays it not just them, which is a good thing.

Money has to come from somewhere and that money comes from tax. So which ever way you cut it. You end up paying.
 
well we have been promised up to 25m for more flood defences or should i say what's left after the feasibility studies and hydrology surveys swallow a good chunk of it, what they got wrong was all they created was bottlenecks, now more money will be wasted yet again and not tackling the source of the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom