NationStates Jolt Archive

Because entitling a thread "Gordon Brown's a Fat ****" would probably cause me to suffer the Wrath of Mod.

Anyway, our annual tax-hike is here (Or is it every six months now? I forget). From the Beeb Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6472999.stm):
BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS

2p off basic rate of income tax
10p starter rate abolished
2p cut in corporation tax
Gas guzzling car duty up to £300 this year and £400 next
Beer and cider up 1p, wine 5p, spirits duty frozen
11p on cigarettes
2p petrol increase frozen for six months
More cash for schools and hospitals



So, why's a non-smoker who doesn't drive much, owns a fairly efficient car anyway, and drinks less than his RDA of beer calling our darling Chancellor of the Exchequer rude names? 'Cos of the tax cut.

Now you might, if you were horribly naïve, think that cutting taxes would give you more money, but it's going to make me about £35.70 worse off per year. If you factor in the increased tax-free allowance on National Insurance that's reduced to £14.80 worse off per year. A trivial amount, maybe, but it's most of a new computer game if you shop around, or a couple of films or CDs, or seven pints, or more than a week's food... Bastard.
Of course, people who earn more than me will be better off. People who earn less than me, down to £5,225 per year, will be even worse off. Huzzah.

Also, making me get aggravated over the budget makes me feel like a right old git. It's just a self-important ponce with a silly suitcase, dammit!

Other stuff... I'm sure the "gas guzzling" car duty will make almost no difference. I was pleasantly surprised that it actually is based on emissions, but it's only for new cars, and who can afford them? Rich people. Ho hum.

I'm actually quite surprised there's no thread on it yet. I only heard about it from a guy in the supermarket checkout. So, does anyone else care? Or have any more pertinent analysis than calling our next PM a ****?
Anyone think it's a good thing?

Because entitling a thread "Gordon Brown's a Fat ****" would probably cause me to suffer the Wrath of Mod.

Anyway, our annual tax-hike is here (Or is it every six months now? I forget). From the Beeb Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6472999.stm):


So, why's a non-smoker who doesn't drive much, owns a fairly efficient car anyway, and drinks less than his RDA of beer calling our darling Chancellor of the Exchequer rude names? 'Cos of the tax cut.

Now you might, if you were horribly naïve, think that cutting taxes would give you more money, but it's going to make me about £35.70 worse off per year. If you factor in the increased tax-free allowance on National Insurance that's reduced to £14.80 worse off per year. A trivial amount, maybe, but it's most of a new computer game if you shop around, or a couple of films or CDs, or seven pints, or more than a week's food... Bastard.
Of course, people who earn more than me will be better off. People who earn less than me, down to £5,225 per year, will be even worse off. Huzzah.

Also, making me get aggravated over the budget makes me feel like a right old git. It's just a self-important ponce with a silly suitcase, dammit!

Other stuff... I'm sure the "gas guzzling" car duty will make almost no difference. I was pleasantly surprised that it actually is based on emissions, but it's only for new cars, and who can afford them? Rich people. Ho hum.

I'm actually quite surprised there's no thread on it yet. I only heard about it from a guy in the supermarket checkout. So, does anyone else care? Or have any more pertinent analysis than calling our next PM a ****?
Anyone think it's a good thing?

I don't understand how PAYE tax cut means you have less money?

I don't understand how PAYE tax cut means you have less money?

No 10% tax rate any more; 20% or bust. And I don't earn that much.

I need to wait for my accountants to figure out whats what for me...as I work as a contractor.

I suspect Gordon is going to do his best to fuck us over....wanker.

I suspect if the same happens by the next budget I will be giving serious consideration to moving elsewhere.

I don't understand how PAYE tax cut means you have less money?
Before today, there were three tiers of income tax - 10%, 22% and 40% (with the first £5225 of your income tax-free). The threshold between the bottom and second tier was at £7375 (so you'd pay 10% tax on £2150). So before, if you earned, say, £10000, you'd pay £792.50 in income tax. Now, you'd pay £955.

Yay for our 'progressive' tax system. :rolleyes:

Little more than a sop to those tempted by Cameron, whilst attempting to retain core Labour votes. Note that, whilst reducing general tax marginally, I daresay this will be more than counteracted by the usual plethora of taxes upon such goods as cigarettes and alcohol. I might note that the greatest of the Brownian taxes, namely, a doubled council tax, remains intact.

Oh, and:

Beer and cider up 1p

http://picturethispartnership.org.uk/thumbs%20down%20col.gif

No 10% tax rate any more; 20% or bust. And I don't earn that much.

Lets take it as read that I don't have the foggist what you mean when you say that. Are you saying that the lower end tax bracket has risen from 10% to 20% and so although we pay 2p in the pound less, the amount of taxable income for certian people has risen from 10% to 20% so the result is actualy you paying more tax?

Lets take it as read that I don't have the foggist what you mean when you say that. Are you saying that the lower end tax bracket has risen from 10% to 20% and so although we pay 2p in the pound less, the amount of taxable income for certian people has risen from 10% to 20% so the result is actualy you paying more tax?

Pretty much.

Those eligible for the 10p rate now have to pay the 22p rate. So despite the fact that the 20p rate is going down to 20p, the worst off are getting a 10p increase.

Lets take it as read that I don't have the foggist what you mean when you say that. Are you saying that the lower end tax bracket has risen from 10% to 20% and so although we pay 2p in the pound less, the amount of taxable income for certian people has risen from 10% to 20% so the result is actualy you paying more tax?

It's like I V Stalin said; at the moment, I pay 0% on the first £5035 I earn, 10% on the next £2150, and then 22% on the rest.

Afterwards, I pay 0% on the first £5225 then 20% on everything else.

People who don't earn much will have to pay more because the 10% increase on the two grand over the tax-free allowance will be more than the 2% decrease on the basic rate for them.

As an off-the-top-of-my-head guesstimate I reckon the crossover "no difference" point will be about £15,000 per year.

Yay for our 'progressive' tax system. :rolleyes:

Heh, yeah. It's great the way that our government seems to enjoy costing poor people money... Students first, then people on relatively low incomes. English Socialism for the win :rolleyes:

A truly terrible budget for those on low incomes. the abolition of the 10% rate effectively doubles the tax paid by some people. So why's he done it?

Because people who live in marginal constituencies are much more likely to benefit from a 2% reduction in the basic rate and so, Gordon probably thinks, will be much more like to benefit from this.

Plus, sneaky little bugger, he's giving lots of dosh away (credits tax cuts and so on) in 2009 and 2011 but when he wants money from you (ie tax hikes) he wants it NOW.

UK govt spending is now almost GBP 650bn. That's almost one-fifth of Bill Gates spare change.

Pretty much.

Those eligible for the 10p rate now have to pay the 22p rate. So despite the fact that the 20p rate is going down to 20p, the worst off are getting a 10p increase.

Ahhh I see then that is indeed shitty.

Plus, sneaky little bugger, he's giving lots of dosh away (credits tax cuts and so on) in 2009 and 2011 but when he wants money from you (ie tax hikes) he wants it NOW.
And you just know the Conservatives will take credit for it if they win the next election.

Heh, yeah. It's great the way that our government seems to enjoy costing poor people money... Students first, then people on relatively low incomes. English Socialism for the win :rolleyes:

Bah. Students, and tuition fees, I do object to, especially given that the Scots have reduced fees, despite our subsidising them.

However, as for "lower income families" (polite euphamism for "benefit stealing poor"), I don't care. Beyond removing all welfare for those of working age who are able to work, and raising the minimum wage, whilst also abjuring the myriad of "tax credits" now in existence, the poor will remain poor, and god knows they won't, for the most part, do a thing to reduce their penury.

However, as for "lower income families" (polite euphamism for "benefit stealing poor"), I don't care. Beyond removing all welfare for those of working age who are able to work, and raising the minimum wage, whilst also abjuring the myriad of "tax credits" now in existence, the poor will remain poor, and god knows they won't, for the most part, do a thing to reduce their penury.

...Mneh?

But people on benefits don't tend to pay tax.
Or am I being stupid and not understanding your excessively flowery language? >_<
Or was that just a rant?

I'm bitching about people who don't earn much - like me - having taxes raised when rich people get them lowered. And taking the piss out of English "socialism".

...Mneh?

But people on benefits don't tend to pay tax.
Or am I being stupid and not understanding your excessively flowery language? >_<
Or was that just a rant?

I'm bitching about people who don't earn much - like me - having taxes raised when rich people get them lowered. And taking the piss out of English "socialism".

What did you expect? Most "lower income households" will vote Labour anyway, hency why would Brown bother doing anything for them, when he needs to contest the centre ground with Cameron?

My point precisely, regarding benefits, For the most part, lazy bastards or irresponsible parents with an excess of children milking my money from the giving teat of the state, whilst not paying tax.

Personally I think it is a bad budget, the worse bit being the privatisation of the Student loan. If a private company gets hold of it, the interest rates will only rise and land students further in debt. The government says they want more people in higher education and then insult us with policies like this.

And £400 on 4x4 cars is hardly going to affect the rich is it? It'll affect the farmers who again are already struggling to make their business profitable and now have to deal with increased taxation.

Anyway there's my rant over :D

Meh - I now have a whole 14pence extra each day.

So just enough to break out a bottle of champagne to celebrate for the year.

The reduction to corperate rates is good though, the UK can always do with being more competitive and should hopefully bring in jobs and investment from overseas while helping to prevent UK companies relocating overseas.

However, as for "lower income families" (polite euphamism for "benefit stealing poor"), I don't care.

Not always. My sister's got a job that pays pisspoor money. Now, she could always get another job. But maybe she doesn't want to. Even so, it's still no justification for stealing, er, taxing, all her income.

And £400 on 4x4 cars is hardly going to affect the rich is it? It'll affect the farmers who again are already struggling to make their business profitable and now have to deal with increased taxation.
Y'know, all they have to do is not buy a new 4x4, and they won't have to pay the higher road tax. Quite simple really. Basically, that tax hike is saying "If you can afford a new one of them buggers, you can afford the extra tax that goes with it".

Y'know, all they have to do is not buy a new 4x4, and they won't have to pay the higher road tax. Quite simple really. Basically, that tax hike is saying "If you can afford a new one of them buggers, you can afford the extra tax that goes with it".

Yes that is all well and good for the rich. But what about farmers who need them to carry out their jobs? Surely they should be exempt from the higher taxes, just tax the rich who want to buy them extra to make up for it.

What did you expect? Most "lower income households" will vote Labour anyway, hency why would Brown bother doing anything for them, when he needs to contest the centre ground with Cameron?

Hahaha, cynical. But not necessarily wrong. We can but hope it'll change their minds, eh?

Personally I think it is a bad budget, the worse bit being the privatisation of the Student loan. If a private company gets hold of it, the interest rates will only rise and land students further in debt. The government says they want more people in higher education and then insult us with policies like this.

I hoped I'd misread that bit. Oh well, that's all going to go tits-up, then. >_<

And £400 on 4x4 cars is hardly going to affect the rich is it? It'll affect the farmers who again are already struggling to make their business profitable and now have to deal with increased taxation.

Or maybe they'll just use their tractors running on red diesel instead of shiny-new 4x4s. Expect more traffic jams in the country ;)
And it's just the really polluting new ones that've had tax increased. Normal 4x4s (the kind people actually use offroad, rather than the giant penises people use to take little Johnny and Krystal to school or go shopping in) probably won't suffer nearly so much.

Bah. Students, and tuition fees, I do object to, especially given that the Scots have reduced fees, despite our subsidising them.

However, as for "lower income families" (polite euphamism for "benefit stealing poor"), I don't care. Beyond removing all welfare for those of working age who are able to work, and raising the minimum wage, whilst also abjuring the myriad of "tax credits" now in existence, the poor will remain poor, and god knows they won't, for the most part, do a thing to reduce their penury.
It may shock you to know, TBC, that there are very many hard-working people who are "lower income families". Consider that "lower income" probably means "earns below the UK average wage" (which is around £23,000), and it's entirely possible for a couple to both have full time minimum wage jobs and earn less than £23k between them. Even with any tax credits or other welfare they might receive.

And how much tax do you pay, anyway?

It's supposed to be a balanced budget overall. But I'm damned if I'm voting for someone who's going to place a higher tax burden than already exists on the poor and reduce it on the rich. I'll also not vote for a man who makes it harder for smaller companies to operate whilst giving tax breaks to corporations.

And for the ignorant Blessed little Chris - you do realise that those on lower incomes pay a higher proportion of their income as tax than to those on higher incomes (and this is before this budget comes into effect). So think twice before you whine about the benefit stealing poor next time.

Yes that is all well and good for the rich. But what about farmers who need them to carry out their jobs? Surely they should be exempt from the higher taxes, just tax the rich who want to buy them extra to make up for it.
Yes, but the vast majority of farmers who need a 4x4 already have one, so they won't be subject to the new tax. And if they need to get a new one if theirs breaks down, they can buy a secondhand one.

I hoped I'd misread that bit. Oh well, that's all going to go tits-up, then. >_<


Definitely....sadly our government seems more concerned with winning popularity contests with the Conservatives rather than actually trying to help its people.

It's supposed to be a balanced budget overall. But I'm damned if I'm voting for someone who's going to place a higher tax burden than already exists on the poor and reduce it on the rich. I'll also not vote for a man who makes it harder for smaller companies to operate whilst giving tax breaks to corporations.
Indeed. I am now hoping Brown doesn't become the next leader of the Labour party, even though I see him as the best hope Labour have of defeating Cameron at the next election.

Yes, but the vast majority of farmers who need a 4x4 already have one, so they won't be subject to the new tax. And if they need to get a new one if theirs breaks down, they can buy a secondhand one.

Probably, but I still feel that we should make them exempt from the higher taxes. The rich deserve to be taxed from having the landrovers but not those who might actually need them. Also, why don't they just tax all 4x4's higher...as long as they do not include farmers and those who need them to work.

Indeed. I am now hoping Brown doesn't become the next leader of the Labour party, even though I see him as the best hope Labour have of defeating Cameron at the next election.

I was hoping Brown might actually reverse some of the damage Blair has caused but Labour at the moment is just like the other two parties, it should return more to its roots rather than trying to become the Liberal Democrats. I'd only vote for Labour because they are more preferable to The Tories and David "I want to be the new Tony Blair" Cameron.

Personally I think it is a bad budget, the worse bit being the privatisation of the Student loan. If a private company gets hold of it, the interest rates will only rise and land students further in debt. The government says they want more people in higher education and then insult us with policies like this.If that does happen I'm going to do what my brother did and elope to another country and avoid any debt I owe. My brother now happily lives the phillipines running a web design company that he pretends operates out of London, thus earning a UK wage in a country where the cost of living is pretty damn low.

I might try some other country though. And I could always move back once I'm 55 or whatever and my debt has been canceled.

Probably, but I still feel that we should make them exempt from the higher taxes. The rich deserve to be taxed from having the landrovers but not those who might actually need them. Also, why don't they just tax all 4x4's higher...as long as they do not include farmers and those who need them to work.

Actually, this new-found love of massive 4x4s is quite vexing for some. My mother drives a Landrover Discovery. Why? Required for towing a horsebox (By law, an EC regulation I think, not just "Oh, I tow horseboxes, I need a Landrover"). She can't afford two cars; you might think you have to be rich to keep horses, but that isn't the case; she earns far less than I do.

So, um, point... Not everybody who drives a 4x4 is a cock. Fact.

you’ know I could of sworn we lived in a social democracy :(

Also 11p on cigarettes! thats a bit of a jump isn’t it :eek:

It's supposed to be a balanced budget overall. But I'm damned if I'm voting for someone who's going to place a higher tax burden than already exists on the poor and reduce it on the rich. I'll also not vote for a man who makes it harder for smaller companies to operate whilst giving tax breaks to corporations.

And for the ignorant Blessed little Chris - you do realise that those on lower incomes pay a higher proportion of their income as tax than to those on higher incomes (and this is before this budget comes into effect). So think twice before you whine about the benefit stealing poor next time.

However, how much can be claimed back through benefits, tax credits and the like?

Also 11p on cigarettes! thats a bit of a jump isn’t it :eek:
Maybe. Though I think that'll give the Treasury an extra £350-400 million a year. Something like that.

Actually, this new-found love of massive 4x4s is quite vexing for some. My mother drives a Landrover Discovery. Why? Required for towing a horsebox (By law, an EC regulation I think, not just "Oh, I tow horseboxes, I need a Landrover"). She can't afford two cars; you might think you have to be rich to keep horses, but that isn't the case; she earns far less than I do.

So, um, point... Not everybody who drives a 4x4 is a cock. Fact.


Of course, only those who drive one out of vanity, not necessity.

Of course, only those who drive one out of vanity, not necessity.
Which, where I live, is around 99.9% of those who drive 4x4s. And guess who never stops at zebra crossings, takes up two parking spaces and jumps red lights at box junctions, screwing it up for everbody else?

Actually, this new-found love of massive 4x4s is quite vexing for some. My mother drives a Landrover Discovery. Why? Required for towing a horsebox (By law, an EC regulation I think, not just "Oh, I tow horseboxes, I need a Landrover"). She can't afford two cars; you might think you have to be rich to keep horses, but that isn't the case; she earns far less than I do.

So, um, point... Not everybody who drives a 4x4 is a cock. Fact.

My aunt has a landrover to deal with her horses. and she isn't that rich. But I still think we should tax them for it....horses cost alot to keep and unless its part of your job its a hobby.

Which, where I live, is around 99.9% of those who drive 4x4s. And guess who never stops at zebra crossings, takes up two parking spaces and jumps red lights at box junctions, screwing it up for everbody else?

Oh, join the club. Personally, I recomment egging every 4x4 you find when pissed early on Saturday morning, Really quite refreshing.

you’ know I could of sworn we lived in a social democracy :(

Also 11p on cigarettes! thats a bit of a jump isn’t it :eek:At 2000 playground prices that only equates to a 1% increase overall. I think. I have no idea what cigarettes really retail at off the kiddie black market.

Indeed. I am now hoping Brown doesn't become the next leader of the Labour party, even though I see him as the best hope Labour have of defeating Cameron at the next election.For some reason I still kinda liked Gordon Brown yesterday... I wanted the rest of Blairites gone most of all, but I would have prefered a left wing takeover more. At the next election I shall probably just end up writing a satirical ditty on my ballot paper. So that would be three general elections in a row in which I couldn't/wouldn't vote in.

I want New Labour annilated at every single election until the New bit fucks off and joins the Tory party.

Maybe. Though I think that'll give the Treasury an extra £350-400 million a year. Something like that.

And cost me more bloody money.....:mad: :p

And cost me more bloody money.....:mad: :pBut you shouldn't be smoking anyway, at least that's what your location seems to suggest.

But you shouldn't be smoking anyway, at least that's what your location seems to suggest.

eh? I turned 18 on Monday, and can therefore legally give myself any number of diseases.;)

I want New Labour annilated at every single election until the New bit fucks off and joins the Tory party.

I'll do you a deal. The Tory party jettissons Dave "wanker" Cameron and his pi cronies, you lose the Blairites, and we actually have differing policies to discuss at election.;)

However, how much can be claimed back through benefits, tax credits and the like?So you're claiming that it's alright to put a higher tax burden on the poor, so long as you give them some money back. I mean who cares if it hurts their cash flow.

eh? I turned 18 on Monday, and can therefore legally give myself any number of diseases.;)I thought sex was legal at 16?

I'll do you a deal. The Tory party jettissons Dave "wanker" Cameron and his pi cronies, you lose the Blairites, and we actually have differing policies to discuss at election.;)Deal! Anything that will motivate people to care about politics.

So you're claiming that it's alright to put a higher tax burden on the poor, so long as you give them some money back. I mean who cares if it hurts their cash flow.

errrr no.

I'm suggesting that raising the minimum wage to a decent level, whilst also reducing taxes would preclude the argument; "oh, there's no point working", whilst simply cutting welfare for those who choose not to work would oblige the lazy into work.

I thought sex was legal at 16?


Drinking isn't.

Red Suitcase Day! Hooray!

Well, as can be expected, our Social Democratic tax system fails us again. More taxing of the lower incomes and middle classes, and a miniscule pin prick for the rich. Brown has done moderately well in dragging us out of the Thatcher and Major days of economic strife, but lately he hasn't been particularly lenient towards those in society that need to be taxed less.

As some people have stated before, this is "English Socialism" at work. And of course, by "English Socialism" I mean True Blue Conservatism draped in Red, holding a Labour Rose.

Labour needs to shift away from it's centre right back towards the left. Isn't it sad that of all three mainstream parties, the Liberal Democrats are the most left wing?

In fact, I truly despise Cameron and Brown for trying to steal away Lib Dem votes instead of strengthening their own traditional ideological positions.

That's the problem with British Democracy nowadays. It doesn't come down to ideology anymore, but rather managerial competence. Soon enough, all three parties will all be centre right, with very much the same policies, all arguing about how well each party can manage the NHS.

Oh wait too late...

Drinking isn't.
But everybody drinks before 18, no? (Unless you're American, 21, hahahah!)

Drinking isn't.

Depends where you drink ;) ......youre just not allowed to buy it or drink it in public until your 18, you can drink it at home from the age of 4 I think and with a meal in public from 14 (correct me if i'm wrong)

However, how much can be claimed back through benefits, tax credits and the like?

For a single-person household earning as much as I do (a bit over fourteen grand a year): £0.00. But I am, apparently, entitled to claim that zero pence back as Working Tax Credit. Yay!

errrr no.

I'm suggesting that raising the minimum wage to a decent level, whilst also reducing taxes would preclude the argument; "oh, there's no point working", whilst simply cutting welfare for those who choose not to work would oblige the lazy into work.
Only works when there's a job for everybody in the population. There isn't.

Now, I'm going to go off on a bit of a rant. Because I've been shafted royally by my 'friends' yet again, and it focuses me on something other than smashing more furniture. (Okay, I started this an hour ago and have calmed down now)

I've gone over these budget proposals by robot Brown, who is being hailed as the Chancellor of the poor, cutting the rate of taxation for the poor by 2% and making everything better for everybody. But he's not, because he's raising the base rate of taxation by 10% (:eek:):eek: and not increasing the 0% allowance at all. So, the effect of it is that it's a tax raise for most working people, and a cut for the richest, although considering their (MPs) pay, it's hardly surprising. Likewise with corporation tax: big business pays 2% less, small business pays 2% more. Add to that increases in petrol duty, while the wealthy pay nothing to jet everywhere, more on alcohol and tobacco (not the worst, but still...).

It's just complete BS, as per usual: fiddle with the numbers to screw everybody over. It's just not fair.

For a single-person household earning as much as I do (a bit over fourteen grand a year): £0.00. But I am, apparently, entitled to claim that zero pence back as Working Tax Credit. Yay!

How effective Brown's tax credits are......

Only works when there's a job for everybody in the population. There isn't.

So why do we then admit immigrants, when we could simply force native unemployed to do the same jobs?

So why do we then admit immigrants, when we could simply force native unemployed to do the same jobs?

Therein lies the rub. We can't "force" native peoples to do those jobs since that would amount to slavery. Also, immigrants are able to do it for much less than what natives would demand.

So why do we then admit immigrants, when we could simply force native unemployed to do the same jobs?
Immigrants will do it for lower wages. Yes, I think it's exploitative too.

So why do we then admit immigrants, when we could simply force native unemployed to do the same jobs?

A) We're part of the EU so EU nationals can come and go as they please
B) We can't shut our borders, its just not practicable
C) The "Natives" demand more money than many from poorer regions so they are brought in to work for lower wages and increase company profits.
D) We aren't Nazi's.
E) We need more skilled labourers and nurses, doctors etc.... Without immigration we would not be able to fill vacancies in the workforce effectively.

We don't need to have some europhobic/xenophobic comments in the arguement as well :rolleyes:

Therein lies the rub. We can't "force" native peoples to do those jobs since that would amount to slavery. Also, immigrants are able to do it for much less than what natives would demand.

"Slavery"? Utter drivel. We would be helping the unemployed to help themselves, and doing so in the interests of the state.

Equally, the funds freed by the removal of welfare could subsidise the attendant raise in wages.

Immigrants will do it for lower wages. Yes, I think it's exploitative too.

Whereas I think they have no right to be where when native unemployed could perform the same tasks, and the wages subsidised.

A) We're part of the EU so EU nationals can come and go as they please
B) We can't shut our borders, its just not practicable
C) The "Natives" demand more money than many from poorer regions so they are brought in to work for lower wages and increase company profits.
D) We aren't Nazi's.
E) We need more skilled labourers and nurses, doctors etc.... Without immigration we would not be able to fill vacancies in the workforce effectively.

We don't need to have some europhobic/xenophobic comments in the arguement as well :rolleyes:

Sorry, but you mentioned it. Fuck the EU, fuck its sodding convention on human rights, and fuck the money it leeches from us each year.

As for our needing more nurses and doctors, last time I checked thousands of BRITISH doctors and nurses are currently unemployed....

Whereas I think they have no right to be where when native unemployed could perform the same tasks, and the wages subsidised.

I'm sure they probably think the same when Brits move abroad

Whereas I think they have no right to be where when native unemployed could perform the same tasks, and the wages subsidised.
Subsidising wages would just encourage employers to reduce wages, which would just exaggerate the poverty trap. It's also important to remember that many people come here to specific jobs when there's a shortage in that industry, not just to come and scrounge, although it probably does happen. Training people to do that job could take too long and cost too much to be reasonable.

Reducing unemployment too much can also raise inflation (apparently) so that's also something to consider. In any case, doesn't that sound too much like benefits for you?

Sorry, but you mentioned it. Fuck the EU, fuck its sodding convention on human rights, and fuck the money it leeches from us each year.

As for our needing more nurses and doctors, last time I checked thousands of BRITISH doctors and nurses are currently unemployed....

Well to that, my dear chap, I respond:

Long live the European Union. May it last another 50 years.

...

Oh wait a mo:

Désirer ardemment de phase Union européenne!

I ,for one, welcome our Brussels overlords.

Sorry, but you mentioned it. Fuck the EU, fuck its sodding convention on human rights, and fuck the money it leeches from us each year.
The EU does a lot of stuff wrong, but not the human rights. After all, we basically wrote it (the convention) after WWII.

As for our needing more nurses and doctors, last time I checked thousands of BRITISH doctors and nurses are currently unemployed....
Junior doctors, yes. But consultants, no.

Sorry, but you mentioned it. Fuck the EU, fuck its sodding convention on human rights, and fuck the money it leeches from us each year.

As for our needing more nurses and doctors, last time I checked thousands of BRITISH doctors and nurses are currently unemployed....

Sorry to say it but I'd like to see figures that prove that thouisands of British doctors and nurses are unemployed. From what I know, there are not enough Nurses and Doctors to fill positions in the NHS and thus foreign doctors and nurses are needed. Same with Dentists and builders.

Also, believe it or not we benefit alot from the E.U. The UK would be economically damaged if it pulled out of the E.U.

At 2000 playground prices that only equates to a 1% increase overall. I think. I have no idea what cigarettes really retail at off the kiddie black market.
It's about £5 for a pack of 20. So it's just over a 2% rise. Less than the rate of inflation, in fact.

And cost me more bloody money.....:mad: :p
Yeah. Another 0.55 pence for every extra cigarette you smoke. My heart bleeds.

Sorry, but you mentioned it. Fuck the EU, fuck its sodding convention on human rights, and fuck the money it leeches from us each year.
Oh dear.

A little helpful advice for the future: it's less embarrassing if you learn first, then rant, rather than simply skipping step one. The European Convention on Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU at all. It is an entirely separate institution.

It's about £5 for a pack of 20. So it's just over a 2% rise. Less than the rate of inflation, in fact.


Yeah. Another 0.55 pence for every extra cigarette you smoke. My heart bleeds.

pack of 20 embassy cost me £5.55 at the shop...mad.

Oh dear.

watching the Newsnight footage...

How the hell did Cameron miss the 10p cut? His reply was about how the 2p cut to 20 was an electioneering cut...

Cameron = conclusively proven to be irrelevant

Oh dear.

watching the Newsnight footage...

How the hell did Cameron miss the 10p cut? His reply was about how the 2p cut to 20 was an electioneering cut...

Cameron = conclusively proven to be irrelevant
Ain't it on until 10:30?:eek:

It's more of a 10p raise than a cut for most...

Ain't it on until 10:30?:eek:

It's more of a 10p raise than a cut for most...

damn! yer right! I thought I was on BBC2 not one! Doh! (I usually just have BBC2 on as back ground noise)

Watched that prog re Barclays thats why I was on BBC1

Yeah....cut is the wrong word...thanks.

Did you see Smiler and the Socially Inept one grinning like a pair of scoundrels knowing they just got away with scrumping the best apples in the orchard when Cameron made his reply?

Scum. The lot of 'em.

I condemn the Guardian to hell for their reaction to the budget. They're talking of masterstrokes of genius, that high incomer earners will be hit by a change in NI contributions, merrily skipping over the abolition of the 10p bracket (mainly calling it a good thing).

Apparently £8billion is to be raised from the abolition of the 10p bracket, but that's alright because it will all be spent on lowering the 22% bracket to 20%

government figures showed a single earner family with two children with average earnings of £27,000 a year would be about £10 a week better off as a result.Yes, that just so average income of £27,000 :rolleyes:

...

I haven't got the energy to rant anymore.

According to the paper I read this morning the Budget leaves me about £72 better off a year based on tax and I don't drive so I guess I'm pretty happy with it but I haven't done the sums for myself yet.

That £72 should make up for the 1p extra a pint I'll be paying this year. :)

As for our needing more nurses and doctors, last time I checked thousands of BRITISH doctors and nurses are currently unemployed....

Can you source this please?

None of the medical grads I know had any trouble getting jobs. And there's such a shortage of nurses that hospitals are having to bring them in from overseas when they can barely speak English.

Can you source this please?

None of the medical grads I know had any trouble getting jobs. And there's such a shortage of nurses that hospitals are having to bring them in from overseas when they can barely speak English.
In a couple of years time, medical graduates will have problems getting jobs - because not enough doctors are retiring, and the Labour government over-invested in new medical schools in the first five years of power. The result is that there will be about 5% of medical graduates without a job when they graduate in 18 months time. And it's likely to get worse in the few years after that.

...Mneh?

But people on benefits don't tend to pay tax.
Or am I being stupid and not understanding your excessively flowery language? >_<
Or was that just a rant?

I'm bitching about people who don't earn much - like me - having taxes raised when rich people get them lowered. And taking the piss out of English "socialism".

Not quite true, when you recive benifits some of it goes towards NI.

My point precisely, regarding benefits, For the most part, lazy bastards or irresponsible parents with an excess of children milking my money from the giving teat of the state, whilst not paying tax.

Thats a load of rubbish. What is more truthfull is that most peole on benifits are so because the two tiered education system, that does not enable them to get the better paid job, coupled with the outrageoues cost of everyday living.

In a couple of years time, medical graduates will have problems getting jobs - because not enough doctors are retiring, and the Labour government over-invested in new medical schools in the first five years of power. The result is that there will be about 5% of medical graduates without a job when they graduate in 18 months time. And it's likely to get worse in the few years after that.

Is there any source for this?

If it's really that bad you'd think they'd just go overseas - it's not as though it's not a marketable degree...

Is there any source for this?
Just what my friends who are doing medicine degrees have told me.

If it's really that bad you'd think they'd just go overseas - it's not as though it's not a marketable degree...
Yeah, but that assumes that they want to work in another country.

Just what my friends who are doing medicine degrees have told me.


Yeah, but that assumes that they want to work in another country.

What? Fewer than one in twenty medical students would want to work in another country?

Why wouldn't they either?

Meh - I now have a whole 14pence extra each day.

So just enough to break out a bottle of champagne to celebrate for the year.

The reduction to corperate rates is good though, the UK can always do with being more competitive and should hopefully bring in jobs and investment from overseas while helping to prevent UK companies relocating overseas.

Why exactly do we want jobs from overseas when there are people who can't even gets jobs in this country! Its about time we stopped being pro Euro! we give into it more than we recieve!

What? Fewer than one in twenty medical students would want to work in another country?

Why wouldn't they either?
The way you apply for jobs when you graduate as a doctor basically means that it is nigh on impossible to get a job overseas. You apply through your university, so it's much much much easier to get a job with a hospital in the UK. Also, you have to do two foundation years as a junior house officer after you graduate. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that you have to do them in the UK, but if you do them overseas then want to come back to work in the UK you're at a disadvantage compared to doctors who did foundation years in this country.

Also, if you want to work in America, you have to basically take another degree before you can, because you have to pass the American medical exams.

Why exactly do we want jobs from overseas when there are people who can't even gets jobs in this country! Its about time we stopped being pro Euro! we give into it more than we recieve!

nonono.

It means we take job vacancies from overseas and bring them here.

If we make it more economical for a company to operate here then they are more likely to open up shop here rather than in another country.

Say you have an international company setting up a european office. They are choosing between the UK and France, if the UK is more economical to them they will open up in the UK, and all the jobs will be created in the UK and it will bring money into the UK. This is generally good for the UK.

Conversely - if you make it more expensive for them to operate in the UK then they are more likely to relocate their business overseas - closing down the UK jobs and opening up new jobs for the lucky people in the country they move to.

http://www.contractoruk.com/news/003159.html

Great. Nice one Gordon. Wanker.

Thats a load of rubbish. What is more truthfull is that most peole on benifits are so because the two tiered education system, that does not enable them to get the better paid job, coupled with the outrageoues cost of everyday living.
And most unemployment benefits come from National Insurance, which the working poor may far more towards than the rich anyway.

Actually, there is one silver lining to all this: the thresholds for National Insurance and Income tax have been consolidated, so perhaps the two might be merged in the future into something less regressive.