tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
So it'll now cost more to take your employer to court for breaking employment law? Who pays more tax, employers or employees?
-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Cameron still a Wanker
- Thread starter John Marwood
- Start date
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
Employees then!
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
I see Camoron still wants to be in power in 2020.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-to-lead-the-country-until-at-least-2020.html
Easy enough to laugh and say no chance, but who would replace him and do a better/less corrupt job, whatever the party?
Prick Clegg?
Ed the Nerd?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-to-lead-the-country-until-at-least-2020.html
Easy enough to laugh and say no chance, but who would replace him and do a better/less corrupt job, whatever the party?
Prick Clegg?
Ed the Nerd?
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
Current odds for next Tory leader - http://www.oddschecker.com/politics-and-election/next-party-leaders/next-conservative-leader
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
I'm surprised that he hasn't brought the Big Issue a bit upmarket - Homeless and Gardenless..?...
To make everyone homeless?
I mean it in the same sense the Jeffrey Archer was so very close to being Mayor of London when he finally got caught for what was obvious to everybody. Shapps has survived this far, but it would be nice if got the leadership just before his very transparent façade was removed...
United57
Well-Known Forumite
Child Benefit farce.
A couple both earning £50 K ( combined £100K ) each will keep the benefit. A couple where one is over the maximum £60 K will not. I think there's something wrong. They cannot afford to means test this benefit so its part of your self assessment declaration. More work for HMRC trying to save a few quid whilst there are bigger fish to catch. I also heard that MP's are being told to make sure they are not claiming?
The only reason that all people over a certain age get the winter fuel allowance is because it would be too costly to means test.
A couple both earning £50 K ( combined £100K ) each will keep the benefit. A couple where one is over the maximum £60 K will not. I think there's something wrong. They cannot afford to means test this benefit so its part of your self assessment declaration. More work for HMRC trying to save a few quid whilst there are bigger fish to catch. I also heard that MP's are being told to make sure they are not claiming?
The only reason that all people over a certain age get the winter fuel allowance is because it would be too costly to means test.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
That seems fair to me as the couple with one earner over 60k still earn, pardon my French, a feck-ton more than most people in the UK and shouldn't rely on state handouts to look after their kids. Plus what does the second parent earn?
It is much harder to work joint finances out, that makes sense. There are much bigger fish of course, but this is a simple measure to implement that will save a few quid immediately. In true tory fashion though I suspect they won't do much else, can't hurt their mates after all.
It is much harder to work joint finances out, that makes sense. There are much bigger fish of course, but this is a simple measure to implement that will save a few quid immediately. In true tory fashion though I suspect they won't do much else, can't hurt their mates after all.
Mikinton
Well-Known Forumite
I'm not so sure that this is as unfair as it seems.
How much would a parent who stayed at home, looking after their kids and doing the various stuff that running a household demands, value the 9 hours or so they spend at home (I say '9 hours or so' ..... it's about 9.5 hours between me leaving in the morning and returning in the evening.) That value needs to be taken into account as part of the total worth of the couple.
So in the above example, the couple where both go out to work have a combined worth of £100k, and where only one partner goes out to work they have a combined worth of £90k, say. Still unfair maybe, but not as unfair as it first seems.
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
Being looked into - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20887547 ...
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
Of course none of this will save as much money as taxing Starbucks.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
On the child benefit front, I should get benefits for not breeding! My decision not to procreate has saved the nation vastly not just in missed benefit payments but also on strain to infrastructure such as schools and medical facilities. They should scrap child benefit for all earning above the national average, and pay it to those without kids that earn below. Seems fair to me! 
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
In the old days, you didn't get any Child Allowance for the first one, it only started to be paid from number two onwards. Now you get more for the first one (£20:30) and less (£13:40) for any subsequent brood.
I see there is now a Guardian's Allowance of £15:55 per week available - I might start buying it, if I qualify..
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
But if there were no children, then who would generate the wealth to pay the taxes to pay for your pension in your dotage?
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
I see it as an inevitable conclusion to our procreation, as it is we have over three million people generating no taxes anyway so more people seems idiotic. Less makes a lot more sense, about 3m less to be precise. One generation needs to take a hit to save future ones, and as we're already getting fecked over we may as well go the whole hog. The longer we leave it the bigger the feckstorm will be when it finally collapses.
Oh hang on, I don't have kids. Sod it, breed like rabbits and ensure my pension!
Oh hang on, I don't have kids. Sod it, breed like rabbits and ensure my pension!
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
There's over 7,000,000,000 worldwide now, allegedly, and still climbing, with around 70,000,000 of them here. We seem unlikely to run out of people in the near future. We can always get some immigrants in to pay the taxes.