Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
are you a gazillionaire?
plus your bins won't get collected
aren't you a civil servant in the 'regions'.
If so, chances are that you'll be made redundant.
so i'll take my redundancy and get a job in the city. Everything's coming up Morris
Definitely NOT alright.
then you'll get £150 bonus a year (£75 per person). If you live to 175 this should cover the cost of the wedding.
LibDems have put the kibosh on that
first ten grand earnings tax free though - which probably works out about the same
They're abstaining on the vote, which I imagine means it will still get through the Commons?
One of the things the Tories got. They didn't get to fuck over poor people with their inheritance tax bullshit.
with the Lib Dems agreeing to abstain. It could get quite tight though and need a three-line whip if all the opposition benches decide to vote agaainst. Inheritance tax rise is apparently off the table entirely though.
until about four years time when everything implodes and tax soars.
I'm married so it sounds like I will be. I don't actually understand why being married should be IMPORTANT AND DESIRABLE but apparently it is. I mean no one who was married ever decided to suicide bomb a tube train, did they?
there is nothing better about married couples than unmarried couples or single people. If they'd done something to help children in unsettles families, i'd accept it, but just a blanket payment for the married seems to justify cmarriages of convenience.
Your missus doesn't read the boards, does she?
Clearly I wouldn't have got married if I didn't want to.
But equally I wouldn't expect tax breaks because I can play a guitar.
but there's no secert as to what that is, i.e. that marriage promotes a stable family background (let's ignore the divoirce stats, hmm?) which in turn leads to a more stable society, aids eudcation, cuts crime ETC. It's a lovely idea(l) but I know of plenty families who are perfectly happy and stable and where the couple aren't married, so it seems dubious. But of course, the plural of my anecdotes does not equal evidence, and all that.......
I have no doubt that I will be better off- not necessarily in my paypacket, but I do believe that business will be better off under this government, which in turn will help my future in due course.
if one is in the business of biometrics, dna databases, ID card manufacture etc then the future isn't so bright
I think not being able to get a divorce beacause it's an incredibly complex procedure and you'll only become a complete pariah if you succeed promotes staying married, which promotes subservience.
Tax breaks for people who get married is the wrong way to go about this. What we need to do is to make people perform a series of Crystal Maze-esque tasks before allowing them to divorce, and then reward their success by branding 'DAMAGED GOODS' across their foreheads.
I mean, if marriage is the desired state why not just outlaw divorce entirely?
Labour would be more keen on us each living in sterile boxes and procreating by artificial insemination. None of that dirty 'sex' nonsense.
and the stigma only remains in certain limited parts of the country's demographic.
I agree that it doesn't prmotoe social stability per se though, as i think I said above. I don't know what the Crystal Maze is.
I wish I could go back and fall in love with it for the first time.
I didn't really watch TV until recently :$
Perhaps because I was glib. I was talking more about British society's quasi-mythical 'golden age' in which crime was low, politicians didn't philander and young people respected their elders and how it was incredibly difficult for individuals to exercise many of the personal freedoms that are very mundane these days. Such as divorce.
and I wasn't at all being awkward :)
Does calling your kids Tarquin and Cordelia promote more of a stable family background, too?
(Aside from the fact that marriage != kids)
I see you're not totally sold on the theory anyways.
You're gonna do just fine over the next few years. ;-)
you'll be exactly the same. cheers
It all depends whether or not these measures lead to a double-dip recession, a raising of interest rates and a further depreciation of the pound.
The tax breaks, tax cuts and the ‘Big Society’ will be just a drop in the ocean if the increase in public sector unemployment means that the economy contracts again.
However, if we assume that the Tory’s plans do not lead to another recession, manage to keep a lip on inflation and hold interest rates down then:
1. If you never gave to charity, and never intend to do so, then you will benefit.
2. If you are married, then you will benefit.
3. If you do not have any dependants (children, parents or grandparents), then you will benefit.
4. If you do not work in the public sector, none of your business or contacts depend on the public sector, or your position will not be under threat from hundreds of thousands of extra professionals all competing in the jobs market, then you will not suffer.
5. If you earn less than £10,000, you will benefit.
6. Some of the planned rises in NI contributions will not be implemented, so you may benefit.
Why are people with children going to be worse off? Surely the Tories support for marriage should come hand in hand with help for those with kids?
for parents earning over £50,000.
Not sure what, but say 60K combined.
Similarly, universal free bus pass for the over 60s. My dad has recently turned 60, he absolutely does not need that concession. He thinks it's ridiculous that he's entitled to one on his income. Same for the winter fuel allowance. My godfather spent his on a day's fly fishing!
Wealthier people should lose those benefits and the savings should be directed at those who need them.
although I suspect that with the potential cost of means testing the free bus pass and sorting the admin, it might actually just be cheaper and easier to allow everyone to have it.
Things like the winter fuel allowance could far more easily done I'd guess.
but the Conservatives wanted to shift money around from SureStarts to nursery vouchers. Most people in the industry believe that this will lead to an increase in childcare costs leaving parents with a larger shortfall to make up themselves.
In fact you will be stunned and shocked about how much worse off you will become, as will you all (mostly)
Although to be fair thats not strictly just because it is tory (although from what they say they certainly do not appreciate the financial difficulties that we are in (accurately)
This is the first day they've had access to the books and it'll take weeks to ascertain the exact scope and scale of the cluster fuck that Brown's made of things.
been indulging in? Or are you just saying that it wouldnt have been quite so bad? (I will allow you to suggest the latter, whereas I would pour scon if you suggest the former)
But, I don't believe they'd have converted a £6 Billion deficit into a £160 Billion one, failed to put money aside whilst the going was good, sold off the UK's gold reserves for 1/3rd of their true value or raided private pension plans.
....I seem to remember that tories and big industrial capitalists/managers are also keen on raiding pension funds.
Also would the tories have allowed HBOS and RBS and northern Rock to fail? (Im not suggesting that chickens shouldnt come home to roost, but unfortunately, due to the mixture of business that these companies do, to allow them to go down then, would appear to make a domino collapse effect to be likely...perhaps the tories disagree with this and they would have allowed their old freinds (the bankers) to sink......but I dont think that they would have, cof course we can argue about that, but we cant prove what they would have done........of course the other thing is that what with labour becoming the bankers 'new freinds' they were only trying to ape the behaviours that had seen the tories return many successive governments and labour obviously felt that they had not hope unless they became like the tories in this respect.....of course you can disagree and i would be interested to hea how you think the tories would have reacted to northern rock, hbos, rbs.
Also would the tories have spent any less in iraq and afghanistan? I dont think so.
Also would the tories also have gone full steam ahead with trident replacement and two new aircraft carriers etc
Also the id card scheme......well im sure if labour hadnt been in power and suggested it....it seems like exactly the sort of scheme that the tories would like.....in fact I am pretty certain that such a scheme has been mooted by promenant tories before labour suggested it.
This shortfall was a general thing that would also have been there even if the tories never lost power......the shortfall was still accumulating when major lost power......so are you suggesting that a tory gov would have come up with a magic pill to solve the huge shortfall....a pill that wouldnt have involved more public spending....a pill that would not be something that could not be accused as being 'a stealth tax'?
some problems under whatever government are often laid as accusations at the incumbants feet, yet they are greater underlyoing problems which would have beset any of the flavours of government on offer (which is what i was kind of saying in my opening post in this thread)
and that it was something that all governments were doing, and all economists were recommending at the time. You'll have to do a lot to convince me that the Tories wouldn't have done the same.
that Brown made the schoolboy error of announcing he was going to do it before selling so the marked tanked in anticipation of this.
so maybe I misremembered. It does seem that he went against the advice of the BoE:
It's a bit misleading going on about how he chose to sell at the 'bottom' of the market though. I mean, you don't know that the market is at the bottom at the time, it only until well afterwards that is known.
Unfortunately the value of it now is three or four times what it was then, thus all the criticism of selling us short. It's a bit of a crap attack, particularly as the market bottomed for a protracted period of time, but if the Tories had done it, I guess people would be bashing them just as strongly as Brown gets it in the neck.
vastly in price, due to my (much stated) pessimism about the state of the global economic system.
I therefore feel that i can criticise them for selling it off at a low price
Remember, this was 1999 when everything was seemingly going 'swimmingly'.
creaky's view of world economics is somewhat unorthodox (not to say it's necessarily wrong). Few if any economists would agree with his predictions now or then.
I didn't read properly and missed the 'to me' bit in the subject.
So creaky, you picked up a load of Au on the cheap then? You must be minted now.
I am foolish for not loving mammon and welcoming it, for it would have nurtured me more in a society where it is the supreme deity, but I stupidly prefer to look after my spirit
and should have done to everyone else in the late 80s.
The wholesale abandonment of mortgage limits and extremely uneveness and divergance of salaries in the mid to late 80s
Greenspans intervention to prop up the stock market crash collapse in 87 (rather than allowing the chickens to come home to roost earlier) and then again in trying to prop up the asian markets collapse just before 99.
These, and their consequences and increases in availability of personal credit and extended mortgages (for consumer purchases and cosmetic lifestyle (unecessary) improvements to property, generally made the debt to actual useful value raio more an more precarious. Western countries seemed quite happy to continue to lose 'real' businesses if this was balanced by 'soft unecessary' businesses and needless services, not to mention the highly dubiuos and probably falsly represented financial 'products'......also monetarisation and floating on markets of services which were vital was also a huge mistake.
All these things make it perfectly obvious (to someone looking at the overall scheme of things....and without a mandate or vested interest) that the global economy was in a very bad way, that was obviously not being acknowledged truly....and in these circumstances it is the norm that gold will be regarded as a safer haven when the effects of the bad state start to manifest themselves.
also why on earth would you trust an economist to understand a situation that hasnt been encountered before?
properly (for me) to others, is the whole nature of investment and reinvestment using huge pots possibly under the 'aegis' of fund managers, and the nature of the esoteric and barely understood 'new products and markets for finance products.
For many of the new markets (they needed to be new cos the markets needed new stuff to appear to continue momentum of growth (the thought that to not maintain 2% growth per annum was a failure) there is no past precedent (past precedent and trends is what economists and their apologists regularly trot out as the basis for their belief that 'normality will be resumed after the next cycle'), but not only is there no past precedent, even if there was then it is stupid to use such reassurances as none of the influencing factors going into 'cycles' are ever exactly the same as before, there has never been effective 'controls' as there are always factors which whilst not necessarily being mitigating, could easily be so.........economics IS NOT a science, since many of the factors in the fomulation of their equations and calculations are variables, not only that but they are variable variables and they are not precicely or accuraely defined, since they cannot be made to be as distinct as can terms in say, mathematics.
Economists can only have an opinion, and the successful ones are the ones that can predict in the short term......Economists are NOT scientists, politicians and companies and institutions will give authority (by personal backing or sponsering) to particular economic theorists......that is all......an endorsement by a fiancial institution or gov does not make the economists theory correct.
I am suggesting that they havnt grasped the whole ongoing global financial collapse, which we are witnessing in stages
but on the issue of 'how well off people are'
This seems to be peoples overiding concern, which is selfish and weak (with the exception of people of people who do not have enough to get by)
If peoples overiding concern come the time to use their bit of democracy voting, then this represents a damning indictment of how pathetic the modern idea of democracy is, how it has be subjugated and domesticated by mammon.....etc etc
i don't think i'll notice how much my finances change, and to be fair i don't care, given the small level i'm likely to be affected. but i believe a lot of people, out there will have voted Tory for personal finacial reasons.
Lib Dem's getting their £10k allowance = yes
working in the public sector in the north east of england = MEGA NO (probably)
doubt i'll notice the difference really