So, this budget then, nobody care?

phildo

Well-Known Forumite
Overall i feel the budget was quite good. The defecit needs cutting quickly, even with this budget we will still be running a defecit for the next 5 years and the debt will be increasing. We don't really start dealing with the debt until we can get a budget surplus and that just feels impossible.
The VAT will hurt, the pay freeze will hurt (fiance is a teacher) and a few other bits will mean that we are worse off but I am happy to be 3-4% worse off and have a sound economy than risk the alternative.
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Its nothing we've not seen before, just a largr scale. Labour always spunk money on infrastructure to bursting point, then the Conservatives balance the books again. Both are needed really, the Tories rely on private investment rather than doing things themselves and the reds can't add up. I wish cabinet ministers were trained in the areas they oversee.
 

My Name is URL

Well-Known Forumite
henryscat said:
means testing should have been brought in on child benefit - it is long overdue
IMHO whats long overdue is the stopping of all "child related benefits"...

No one should be incentivised or supported to have children... if you can't afford to pay for them yourself, don't have them. Simples.
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Something I agree with in principle, but not in practice. My dad walked out when I was 9 leaving my mum with 4 kids, no job (she had to look after us) and he didn't pay a penny towards our upkeep. Without child benefits we'd have starved, although admittedly benefits were a LOT smaller back then anyway.

We need to keep the safety net, without allowing the breeding for profit mentality we have now.
 

Trumpet

Well-Known Forumite
gk141054 said:
henryscat said:
means testing should have been brought in on child benefit - it is long overdue
IMHO whats long overdue is the stopping of all "child related benefits"...

No one should be incentivised or supported to have children... if you can't afford to pay for them yourself, don't have them. Simples.
Absolutely right, but should be a safety net for changes in circumstances such as Tek-monkey cites.
Banging the money saved into the pension system would, in theory, allow an immediate state pension increase.
 

My Name is URL

Well-Known Forumite
tek-monkey said:
Something I agree with in principle, but not in practice. My dad walked out when I was 9 leaving my mum with 4 kids, no job (she had to look after us) and he didn't pay a penny towards our upkeep. Without child benefits we'd have starved, although admittedly benefits were a LOT smaller back then anyway.

We need to keep the safety net, without allowing the breeding for profit mentality we have now.
Good point, perhaps scrapping all child related benefits, a small proportion of the money saved could be used to set up a scheme to force parents to contribute to supporting their kids... taking the contribution at source from their income maybe...

Perhaps people should have to give the government a deposit before they are allowed kids and should they spilt up then the deposit could be used in place of benefits... :rofl: :)
 

Trumpet

Well-Known Forumite
gk141054 said:
Good point, perhaps scrapping all child related benefits, a small proportion of the money saved could be used to set up a scheme to force parents to contribute to supporting their kids... taking the contribution at source from their income maybe.
Hmmm, sounds familiar.
 

My Name is URL

Well-Known Forumite
zakkwylde87 said:
Nice to see no rise in beer/fags/petrol - Most important thing in the budget i reckon! Get in!
Just to clarify as most people (me included) misunderstood this initially... its no ADDITIONAL rise in beer/fags/petrol on top of the already planned rises.
 

phildo

Well-Known Forumite
gk141054 said:
zakkwylde87 said:
Nice to see no rise in beer/fags/petrol - Most important thing in the budget i reckon! Get in!
Just to clarify as most people (me included) misunderstood this initially... its no ADDITIONAL rise in beer/fags/petrol on top of the already planned rises.
and they'll all go up in January with the VAT increase to 20%
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
gk141054 said:
Good point, perhaps scrapping all child related benefits, a small proportion of the money saved could be used to set up a scheme to force parents to contribute to supporting their kids... taking the contribution at source from their income maybe...

Perhaps people should have to give the government a deposit before they are allowed kids and should they spilt up then the deposit could be used in place of benefits... :rofl: :)
I'd like to see something, even if just a token payment, removed from benefits too. If you are dolescum there is absolutely no financial penalty for having kids, it is in fact encouraged as you get a better house. The male can then walk away as single parents are better off if both on the dole, and he doesn't pay a penny. Make a standard 10% per child reduction from any benefits a father receives, after their first year of unemployment (or immediately if the baby was conceived and born while the father was unemployed).

The present system only goes after workers, a tad unfair.

gk141054 said:
zakkwylde87 said:
Nice to see no rise in beer/fags/petrol - Most important thing in the budget i reckon! Get in!
Just to clarify as most people (me included) misunderstood this initially... its no ADDITIONAL rise in beer/fags/petrol on top of the already planned rises.
Plus the vat rise of course, which affects everything not zero rated.
 

Trumpet

Well-Known Forumite
To quote Tek-monkey
'The present system only goes after workers, a tad unfair.'

If you've got a job, you've got an income, fair target. As in another current thread, if you've got a vehicle, you've probably got some form of income, fair target.

Cynical Moi?
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
If you're on benefits you have an income, plus can do your fair share of looking after the kids because its not like you do anything else all day. Benefits are an income, and should be treated as such.

As for the other thread, speed cameras catch people too dumb to read road signs. Regardless of your wealth (and a shitload of people on benefits have cars), if you're stupid enough to get caught you face the penalties. As my bike instructor used to remind me, the throttle goes both ways.
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
ad_pic3.jpg
 

shoes

Well-Known Forumite
Trumpet said:
To quote Tek-monkey
'The present system only goes after workers, a tad unfair.'

If you've got a job, you've got an income, fair target. As in another current thread, if you've got a vehicle, you've probably got some form of income, fair target.

Cynical Moi?
Unfortunately I think it's going to start going the other way, people who work will be doing everything in their power to earn more, get more perks and so on. I for one have had enough of how much the working person is screwed over to support those who just couldn't give a toss or even those who are 'happy' to earn next to nothing and claim every benefit going (by happy I mean not doing anything about it - they can't be that unhappy stacking shelves or whatever).

As such I'm climbing the career ladder quickly, with little or no regard for those who get in the way or fall behind - all being well I will have accumulated enough wealth in time that I will be able to retire maybe even a full year or two before I die. That's the plan anyway.

In the meantime I think it's about as being as tax efficient as possible and just being smart with your income/outgoings to take advantage of whatever you can from this budget, and the next one and so on. Now's the time to buy a car if you don't want to be paying 20% VAT. Admittedly that will only add £400 to the price of a £15,000 car - not really the end of the world, but every little helps.
 

Trumpet

Well-Known Forumite
tek-monkey said:
If you're on benefits you have an income, plus can do your fair share of looking after the kids because its not like you do anything else all day. Benefits are an income, and should be treated as such.


Quite rightly too, but as you said 'The present system only goes after workers, a tad unfair.
'


As for the other thread, speed cameras catch people too dumb to read road signs. Regardless of your wealth (and a shitload of people on benefits have cars), if you're stupid enough to get caught you face the penalties. As my bike instructor used to remind me, the throttle goes both ways.
And again quite right, I've never had a problem paying for my couple of mistakes in this regard (mobile cameras I'll hasten to add) and only blame myself. But still feel that in general the motorist is seen as some form of 'cash cow'.
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
In a way they are, but in a way thats their choice surely? Not speeding = no speeding fines / points.

Personally I have no idea what the fines are for though, why can't they just give points? Maybe its to pay for the speed awareness courses they run?
 

shoes

Well-Known Forumite
Nope you have to pay for those on top. The fines are supposed to be a deterrent. As are the points. The fines are a short term increase in funds for the government. Points allow them to systematically take people off the road and reduce congestion so they can stand up and say they did it by way of engineering.

Personally I'd opt for a fixed fine only system.

I'd be interested to see what (if any) correlation there was between people being caught speeding and the number of insurance claims they make. Has such a study been conducted - are the results available to the little people?
 

My Name is URL

Well-Known Forumite
The people on the speed awareness course actually pay for the cost of it.... so it can't be that:

"Do I have to pay?
Yes. The course fees are usually between £60 and £100, which you pay to the course provider direct"
 
Top