Budget

You keep missing this.

Thanks to idiotic George this is what really happens to hard working people with 2 children, trying to do the right thing.

In 2020 a couple with 2 kids with the man working 37.5 hours per week at the Living wage and the woman working 16 hours at the living wage will be £850 per year worse off

Haven't missed it , I think it's the 3rd time you've posted it , the only link I can find for that claim is out of the Guardian , from the Resolution Foundation. I notice the word " estimated " and given that the socialists kept telling us that people are £1600 worse off at the Election , without any evidence , I look forward to you providing some.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ial-security-cuts-tax-credits-housing-benefit


The Resolution Foundation thinktank estimated that although some middle earners would be net gainers from Osborne’s changes to welfare and the minimum wage, they would leave low earners, typically on £9.35 an hour, between £850 and £1,000 a year worse off.
 
Haven't missed it , I think it's the 3rd time you've posted it , the only link I can find for that claim is out of the Guardian , from the Resolution Foundation. I notice the word " estimated " and given that the socialists kept telling us that people are £1600 worse off at the Election , without any evidence , I look forward to you providing some.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ial-security-cuts-tax-credits-housing-benefit


The Resolution Foundation thinktank estimated that although some middle earners would be net gainers from Osborne’s changes to welfare and the minimum wage, they would leave low earners, typically on £9.35 an hour, between £850 and £1,000 a year worse off.

Tim Montgomerie. Founder/owner of Conservative Home, writer for The Times and Head of the Conservative Think Tank The Good Right and advocate for Tory National Party values, alumnus Of Osborne as well i believe, was my source.

Montgomerie is also a ST holder at the swamp. He is from Salisbury.

As ever the poor lose under the Nasty party. They always do they always have, they always will.
 
@Rascal you keep saying the poor lose...........

There are always going to be the poor people, the Middle earners and the well off in this country. If you study hard to get a well paid job and work hard and earn promotion do you want to see someone who doesn't do any of that enjoying the same lifestyle? No. Being realistic everyone can't be the same. A young friend of my daughters who has one child recently got a job of 20 hours a week after a reduction in her benefits etc because of the job she was £6 a week better off so decided she wouldn't bother with working. It's this situation that needs to be addressed, I'm all for reducing benefits and increasing the minimum wage so this sort of situation doesn't arise
 
You keep missing this.

Thanks to idiotic George this is what really happens to hard working people with 2 children, trying to do the right thing.

In 2020 a couple with 2 kids with the man working 37.5 hours per week at the Living wage and the woman working 16 hours at the living wage will be £850 per year worse off
That's because no one cares about said hypothetical couple.

Tell me though, will someone on the current minimum wage be better off?
 
That's because no one cares about said hypothetical couple.

Tell me though, will someone on the current minimum wage be better off?

Nope. For every pound they've added to the minimum wage they've taken 2 off tax credits. They always do this, back in the Thatcher years they'd cut the headline tax rate but then either not update the allowances or put the NI up.
 
Lots of reasons , but that's history now , the Party of the working family are in their rightfully Elected place and are doing a magnificent job, they will win the next GE, not sure now who will be Leader after Gorgeous George's performance today and four more to come.

You're sick.

A young working family, both parents in employment, are going to be £2,000 worse off per year. That is a significant amount.

My one year old daughter will have even less of a chance in life.

We already had to turn down a higher paid job as there is no childcare available that covers 5 working days due to cuts - there are only spaces at one nursery in the area which are on a Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Those 'top ups' that we rely on due to cuts elsewhere, which stop us earning more, have been cut.

How is any of this fair?
 
You're sick.

A young working family, both parents in employment, are going to be £2,000 worse off per year. That is a significant amount.

My one year old daughter will have even less of a chance in life.

We already had to turn down a higher paid job as there is no childcare available that covers 5 working days due to cuts - there are only spaces at one nursery in the area which are on a Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Those 'top ups' that we rely on due to cuts elsewhere, which stop us earning more, have been cut.

How is any of this fair?
Source? Link?
 
Nope. For every pound they've added to the minimum wage they've taken 2 off tax credits. They always do this, back in the Thatcher years they'd cut the headline tax rate but then either not update the allowances or put the NI up.
Everyone was on tax credits were they?

Some highlights as to who is better off:

National living wage: A new national living wage for workers aged 25 and above will be introduced from April 2016. It will be set at £7.20 – 70p more than the current national minimum wage rate for those over 21, and 50p above the national minimum wage increase coming into effect in October.

It will reach £9 per hour by 2020.

Personal Allowance Increase: In 2016-17, the "personal allowance" – the threshold at which most taxpayers start paying income tax – will increase by £400, from £10,600 to £11,000. As a result, a basic-rate taxpayer will be £80 better off in 2016-17 compared to 2015-16, the Chancellor said, and £905 better off compared with 2010.

Inheritance tax: married couples can now pass up to £1m of their hard earned and saved assets to their beneficiaries before the tax man takes 40% in the total unjust inheritance tax.

Income tax: George Osborne confirmed that the higher-rate income tax threshold would increase from £42,385 to £43,000 for 2016-17. These changes will lift 130,000 individuals out of higher-rate tax by 2016-17, compared to 2015-16, the Treasury said.

Childcare: From September 2017, employed parents will get up to 30 hours of free childcare each week for children aged 3 and 4 (notice the perennial moaners haven't mentioned this at all)

Fuel duty frozen for another year.
 
Everyone was on tax credits were they?

Some highlights as to who is better off:

National living wage: A new national living wage for workers aged 25 and above will be introduced from April 2016. It will be set at £7.20 – 70p more than the current national minimum wage rate for those over 21, and 50p above the national minimum wage increase coming into effect in October.

It will reach £9 per hour by 2020.

Personal Allowance Increase: In 2016-17, the "personal allowance" – the threshold at which most taxpayers start paying income tax – will increase by £400, from £10,600 to £11,000. As a result, a basic-rate taxpayer will be £80 better off in 2016-17 compared to 2015-16, the Chancellor said, and £905 better off compared with 2010.

Inheritance tax: married couples can now pass up to £1m of their hard earned and saved assets to their beneficiaries before the tax man takes 40% in the total unjust inheritance tax.

Income tax: George Osborne confirmed that the higher-rate income tax threshold would increase from £42,385 to £43,000 for 2016-17. These changes will lift 130,000 individuals out of higher-rate tax by 2016-17, compared to 2015-16, the Treasury said.

Childcare: From September 2017, employed parents will get up to 30 hours of free childcare each week for children aged 3 and 4 (notice the perennial moaners haven't mentioned this at all)

Fuel duty frozen for another year.

£9 LIVING WAGE BY 2020. It should already be £9.15p in London.

Under 25s not protected by living wage. Under 21s HB denied.

Personal allowance. Stupid regressive taxation. The richest benefit most. The poorest unaffected.

Inheritance..Unearned wealth should be taxed on who recieves it. Unearned wealth increases inequality. Increasing inequality is bad for growth

Income tax. Woopie fucking do. Tax cut for the better off again

Childcare. fair enough, but nothing for mothers who want to stay at home.

Fuel duty frozen...OK if you can actually afford a car.


Absolute car crash of a budget unless you are over 25 earn over £43k and live in your own house in the South East. Osborne on the TV this morning just lied and prevaricated. He was asked repeatedly about people losing money. His answer was Greece ffs.

And as for that contemptible **** IDS cheering like a typical sofa rag from Surrey even the Mail readers hate the ****.
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/budget-2015-single-mum-of-8-fears-6030489

Budget 2015: Single mum-of-8 fears she could become homeless if her £26,000 benefits are capped
  • In today's announcement, Chancellor George Osborne said benefits would be capped at £20,000 per year for those living outside London.
  • Dire straits: Mum-of-eight Marie Buchan says the budget announcement could see her family on the streets
A single mum of eight children who gets a whopping £26,000 a year in benefits fears she could be on the streets thanks to the new budget.

In today's announcement, Chancellor George Osborne said benefits would be capped at £20,000 per year for those living outside London.


And Marie says the measure could thrust her brood into poverty, and may even leave her family homeless.

Birmingham’s most controversial mother said the chancellor’s new measure would leave her enormous family on the breadline and, potentially, out on the street.

“There are nine of us to feed and we are not living in luxury,” the jobless 33-year-old told the Birmingham Mail.



BPM Media
Marie-Buchan-from-Selly-Oak-Birmingham-pictured-with-her-eight-children.jpg

Capped: Marie Buchan currently rakes in £26,000 a year in benefits


“There’s not a lot left now.”

The £20,000 welfare limit was among the measures announced by George Osborne in the first Tory-only Budget for 18 years.

But Marie said she was already behind with her rent and a £6,000 benefit drop would see her kicked out of her taxpayer-funded, four-bedroom home.

She said she already had one possession order – a document giving her landlord the right to evict her – against her name.

A £20,000 benefit ceiling would probably lead to another and see her children made homeless, she added.

Marie – dubbed Britain’s “welfare queen” – previously fuelled the storm over her massive family by revealing her hopes of having a ninth child with a surrogate.

But she said another baby was now not an option.

“Eight is more than enough to care for,” she said.

Marie lives in a house rented from Bournville Village Trust with her children Tia, 13, Leah, 12, Latoya, ten, Joshua, nine, Alisha, six, Mikayla, five, Amelia, three, and Olivia, aged 21 months.

Her £26,000 annual benefits package is composed of council tax, child benefit, child tax, income support and housing benefit of 50p a week.

It works out at around £500 a week, from which she pays rent of £137.



BPM
Marie-Buchan.png

Hard up: Marie says the family are not living in luxury


Marie, who insisted she wanted to work, said £200 of the remaining £363 was swallowed up by food shopping and she also had to pay her utility and other bills.

She said she worked a 21-hour day caring for her children, rising at 6am and not going to bed until 3am, watched every penny and scoured eBay, car boot sales and charity shops for bargains.

“What really gets to me is I have had so much hate from over the world,” she said.

“People say I’m lazy and take, take, take.

“But I’m a mum of eight who is under the cap and works hard raising my eight children – a full-time job on its own.”

Marie said she used to work as a cleaner but had to quit because of issues with getting her children ready in the mornings.

She also attended a course for an NHS job but was told she could not take up her place as her youngest child would not be entitled to childcare.

Marie said she had been advised that her benefits cap would be removed if she worked 16 hours a week – allowing her the maximum state help with rent, council tax and childcare.

“I really want to work, but right now no-one is willing to help in any way,” she said.

“All I’m being told is to wait until my youngest is five.

“Working 16 hours will help me so much – yet I will be taking more from the state by working through [help with] rent, childcare and council tax.

“Right now I’m not getting any help, even though I’ve tried every angle possible.”
 
Tim Montgomerie. Founder/owner of Conservative Home, writer for The Times and Head of the Conservative Think Tank The Good Right and advocate for Tory National Party values, alumnus Of Osborne as well i believe, was my source.

Montgomerie is also a ST holder at the swamp. He is from Salisbury.

As ever the poor lose under the Nasty party. They always do they always have, they always will.
Hi, "poor" person here (at least by societies standards since I earn just under £10000 pa)

Erm, can you NOT speak for people like me? Thanks. I actually like this budget from what i've read so far; there are plans in place to ease the strain on having to work extra long hours on minimum wage, whilst at the same time making workshy yoofs make the decision to enter the rat race early (as I had to) or go into further education. Even on my meager wages I've been able to set some money aside in a savings account. Nothing spectacular, £10 here, £5 there, but it has grown over the 12 years i've been in work. Why? Because i've 'lived within my means'. Until i'm able to earn enough i've been able to accept being unable to "keep up with the Joneses" and I feel i'm happier for it.

I don't need holidays abroad, I don't need a massive widescreen TV, i've got a roof over my head, clean water to drink and warm food in my belly. Anything else is a bonus. You can budget your lifestyle but that doesn't mean i'm 'poor'. There are some overly extravangent individuals who have champagne parties and drive the new Mercedes flaunting their entitled riches in peoples faces (usually mine, behind the bar). But so what. Fair play to them, that's what they need to make their life worthwhile. I don't. Whether they worked hard for it or it was given to them on a plate due to their background and associated upbringing, that's their business, and comparing my lot to there's just makes for a bitter existance. See the joys in your own life before comparing yourself to others, is my motto.

If someones rent is too high, then downsize. If you can't afford to feed your children, don't plan on having anymore until you can. You look at your income and adjust accordingly. I could, why can't these 'needy people' who leave school (having not bothered to learn or apply themselves since they found it 'boring') only to expect working people in society to pay for them to sit around doing nothing moping around about how hard it is to get a job and that no-one cares about them. People do care, but sometimes patience has it's limits and Labour made that sort of lifestyle very easy for people to survive on welfare, especially as the most taxing of all, living payments, were paid for by taxpayers.

I don't earn enough to pay taxes, but that doesn't mean I don't empathise with those people who see their hard earned money, money they themselves would love to treat their own loved ones with, being squandered on people who have chosen not to give a shit about making their own way in life. If you can't afford it, you go without until you can. But this is the "I want it NOW" generation, and that being without the latest iPad for all your children is seen as being in poverty. If I can live a healthy, happy life on less than £10000 a year, coming from a working class, South Manchester background and a 'broken home' (again, by societies standards) what exactly is stopping the rest of these benefits users? (Note: I am not including those who require medical assistance, but the workshy, lazy and feckless members of our society who have no intention of working)
 
@Rascal

There are always going to be the poor people,

The UK is not a 3rd world country

We are the 6th richest country on the planet. Nobody should be poor, have to use foodbanks,be cold, live on the street or beg.

The reason why there are poor people is because just accept that there always be poor people. They let the rich ride roughshod all over the working class time after time. The hard won working rights and social democrat concensus are being eroded so that those at the top can libe their own pockets at our expense, at your expense, at your families expense. They dont care about people like us. We are nothing to them, just working class scum.

Osbornes budget yesterday was unadulterated class war.
 
The more I look into this budget the more I like it!

I may even afford myself a little IDS style fist pump. You have to hand it to the conservatives - they're the party who capable of making these difficult decisions for the greater good.
 
Hi, "poor" person here (at least by societies standards since I earn just under £10000 pa)

Erm, can you NOT speak for people like me? Thanks. I actually like this budget from what i've read so far; there are plans in place to ease the strain on having to work extra long hours on minimum wage, whilst at the same time making workshy yoofs make the decision to enter the rat race early (as I had to) or go into further education. Even on my meager wages I've been able to set some money aside in a savings account. Nothing spectacular, £10 here, £5 there, but it has grown over the 12 years i've been in work. Why? Because i've 'lived within my means'. Until i'm able to earn enough i've been able to accept being unable to "keep up with the Joneses" and I feel i'm happier for it.

I don't need holidays abroad, I don't need a massive widescreen TV, i've got a roof over my head, clean water to drink and warm food in my belly. Anything else is a bonus. You can budget your lifestyle but that doesn't mean i'm 'poor'. There are some overly extravangent individuals who have champagne parties and drive the new Mercedes flaunting their entitled riches in peoples faces (usually mine, behind the bar). But so what. Fair play to them, that's what they need to make their life worthwhile. I don't. Whether they worked hard for it or it was given to them on a plate due to their background and associated upbringing, that's their business, and comparing my lot to there's just makes for a bitter existance. See the joys in your own life before comparing yourself to others, is my motto.

If someones rent is too high, then downsize. If you can't afford to feed your children, don't plan on having anymore until you can. You look at your income and adjust accordingly. I could, why can't these 'needy people' who leave school (having not bothered to learn or apply themselves since they found it 'boring') only to expect working people in society to pay for them to sit around doing nothing moping around about how hard it is to get a job and that no-one cares about them. People do care, but sometimes patience has it's limits and Labour made that sort of lifestyle very easy for people to survive on welfare, especially as the most taxing of all, living payments, were paid for by taxpayers.

I don't earn enough to pay taxes, but that doesn't mean I don't empathise with those people who see their hard earned money, money they themselves would love to treat their own loved ones with, being squandered on people who have chosen not to give a shit about making their own way in life. If you can't afford it, you go without until you can. But this is the "I want it NOW" generation, and that being without the latest iPad for all your children is seen as being in poverty. If I can live a healthy, happy life on less than £10000 a year, coming from a working class, South Manchester background and a 'broken home' (again, by societies standards) what exactly is stopping the rest of these benefits users? (Note: I am not including those who require medical assistance, but the workshy, lazy and feckless members of our society who have no intention of working)

Regurgitated right wing media propaganda.

You are the result of the divide and rule tactics employed by the wealthy to divide the working class.

The rich love "heroes" like you
 
The UK is not a 3rd world country

We are the 6th richest country on the planet. Nobody should be poor, have to use foodbanks,be cold, live on the street or beg.

The reason why there are poor people is because just accept that there always be poor people. They let the rich ride roughshod all over the working class time after time. The hard won working rights and social democrat concensus are being eroded so that those at the top can libe their own pockets at our expense, at your expense, at your families expense. They dont care about people like us. We are nothing to them, just working class scum.

Osbornes budget yesterday was unadulterated class war.
post-3-0-06110500-1392762595.jpg
 
If that was a budget that gets to grips with the work shy,scrounging,world owes them a living,fuckers that this country is infested by,then its just fine by me.
 
Just to clarify one of SWP points above.

The IHT limit is only if you have a property worth £350k and are part of a couple who can transfer your own allowance (£175k each).

If you have no property and £1m in cash then the limit is still £650k. The new limit is also staggered in and will only be £1m in total by 2020/21. From 17/18 it will be £100k each person to use against a property so effectively £850k IHT allowance from 17/18 rising to £1m in 20/21.

The key part is that it only applies if you have Children/Grandchildren to pass it to. If you do not have direct descendants then you do not get this allowance. A childless couple therefore will not benefit from this allowance.

Not that it affects most people but you never know there may be one or two wealthy people on here :-)

The tax benefits given in one hand will largely be taken away by the increase in insurance premium tax and the new car tax coming into play.
 
£9 LIVING WAGE BY 2020. It should already be £9.15p in London.

Under 25s not protected by living wage. Under 21s HB denied. Why should they be?

Personal allowance. Stupid regressive taxation. The richest benefit most. The poorest unaffected. Opposite is true. Basic rate payers benefit the most

Inheritance..Unearned wealth should be taxed on who recieves it. Unearned wealth increases inequality. Increasing inequality is bad for growth Bollocks you Commie. The wealth being passed has already been taxed, usually three times.

Income tax. Woopie fucking do. Tax cut for the better off again since when is earning 43k putting you in the better off bracket? You don't like people that earn do you.

Childcare. fair enough, but nothing for mothers who want to stay at home. why should they? That's their choice. Why should society pay?

Fuel duty frozen...OK if you can actually afford a car. Which most people do


Absolute car crash of a budget unless you are over 25 earn over £43k and live in your own house in the South East. Osborne on the TV this morning just lied and prevaricated. He was asked repeatedly about people losing money. His answer was Greece ffs.

And as for that contemptible **** IDS cheering like a typical sofa rag from Surrey even the Mail readers hate the ****.
A great budget if you work or are having kids and want to work.

A car crash if you are not interested in working.

You only seem to care about those wanting to stay at home, claim benefits, earn a small enough amount to qualify for tax credits or throw out as many sprogs as possible. You don't seem to care at all about the majority that want to work and earn. But you're in the minority which is why the Tories are still in power and most people are happy with this excellent budget.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top