SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,078
Guessing this is tongue in cheek.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Budget
- Thread starter kas_tippler
- Start date
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,078
Yeah I'd agree with those percentages.13 million 'families' Not people, I'd say that's 40-50% of the country
So the majority will be better off then?
Guessing this is tongue in cheek.
No. Why would it be?
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,078
Because basing it on nothing, you decided it was an upper middle class nob trying to be controversial.No. Why would it be?
When all polls will show that the group you just plumped for are far more likely to vote Tory than write Fuck Tory Scum on a war memorial.
Balance of probability would say it's would be a poor downtrodden inner city type.
Yeah I'd agree with those percentages.
So the majority will be better off then?
"6 million people will be better off"
Osborne's words not mine in a TV interview today
Blue Maverick
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 22,184
If this is true it's a massive game changer for lots of people, in fact I'd say most people at the lower end would fuck pensions off altogether. I currently pay £400 before tax a month, so if I had to pay that net it would be around an extra £100 or so am I right?I'd love a read of your source for this.
At present, your pension comes from your pay net of tax and you get your tax added back. Not as you state it above.
So you pay in 80 and another 20 is added back from the government. You are then taxed on your pension income when you retire.
One proposal would be to not get your tax credit now, and therefore not pay tax on your pension income in retirement. Which is exactly the same way that ISAs and before PEPs have worked for nearly 29 years.
Are you sure you're not simply confused? You certainly sound it.
Edit: and nothing is even concrete yet.
Because basing it on nothing, you decided it was an upper middle class nob trying to be controversial.
When all polls will show that the group you just plumped for are far more likely to vote Tory than write Fuck Tory Scum on a war memorial.
Balance of probability would say it's would be a poor downtrodden inner city type.
Because basing it on nothing, you decided it was an upper middle class nob trying to be controversial.
When all polls will show that the group you just plumped for are far more likely to vote Tory than write Fuck Tory Scum on a war memorial.
Balance of probability would say it's would be a poor downtrodden inner city type.
Bloody hell, you are naive. Read about the student Laing who urinated on a War Memorial a couple of years back.
People do not fit into the boxes you desire. Upper middle class kids in particular.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,078
All I'm trying to work out is that if only 13m families are worse off, how many are better off? Surely those in the middle can't have zero change with all the changes."6 million people will be better off"
Osborne's words not mine in a TV interview today
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,078
No. Not naive.Bloody hell, you are naive. Read about the student Laing who urinated on a War Memorial a couple of years back.
People do not fit into the boxes you desire. Upper middle class kids in particular.
You're the one labelling who did the vandalism without any evidence based on one student a few years ago.
So did you.No. Not naive.
You're the one labelling who did the vandalism without any evidence based on one student a few years ago.