The Politics Thread

[William the White]

Always bearing in mind that our system doesn't operate in isolation of wider economic systems...

A hard point to grasp by those clinging like limpets to the 'Labour did it' mantra... They did Lehman bros?

[Bruce Rioja]

No doubt you'll be offering to pay back the amounts your parents recieved for you (index linked of course)

I'm sure my parents contributions more than covered that.

I'm sure mine more than cover the fact I currently get child benefit.

Exactly as it should be, too.

So are you saying I should get child benefit or not then? is the bit about whether your contibutions "cover" the benefit just a bit of smoke and mirrors?

I'd do away with it, Worthy. We've been down this path before.

[Worthy4England]

I'm sure my parents contributions more than covered that.

I'm sure mine more than cover the fact I currently get child benefit.

Exactly as it should be, too.

So are you saying I should get child benefit or not then? is the bit about whether your contibutions "cover" the benefit just a bit of smoke and mirrors?

I'd do away with it, Worthy. We've been down this path before.

We have been down this path before, but no-one has yet been able to explain to me, why, given all the posters on here parents will have had the benefit - it's now so wrong?

Smacks of "I'm alright Jack-ism" to me.

My folks got it, great, I have no kids so I want no part of it...

[thebish]

Always bearing in mind that our system doesn't operate in isolation of wider economic systems...

A hard point to grasp by those clinging like limpets to the 'Labour did it' mantra... They did Lehman bros?

It is pretty much the modern orthodoxy now though - I doubt labour will ever really shake it off...

people really do seem to think that running the economy is just a bigger-scale version of an ordinary household budget - it's an argument that appeals to "common sense" - and yet - is almost entirely bollox.

[Bruce Rioja]

I'm sure mine more than cover the fact I currently get child benefit.

Exactly as it should be, too.

So are you saying I should get child benefit or not then? is the bit about whether your contibutions "cover" the benefit just a bit of smoke and mirrors?

I'd do away with it, Worthy. We've been down this path before.

We have been down this path before, but no-one has yet been able to explain to me, why, given all the posters on here parents will have had the benefit - it's now so wrong?

Smacks of "I'm alright Jack-ism" to me.

My folks got it, great, I have no kids so I want no part of it...

Ah, so you actually need the state to take your money off you and then give it you back so that you're kids are looked after? Strange. I thought you could be trusted. See, that's why I'd do away with it - we're all grown ups and are responsible for our own actions. It's Nowt to do with how well Jack is.

[thebish]

The government has indicated it plans a tax break for married couples by 2015, amid anger over plans to cut child benefit for top rate taxpayers.

The Tory manifesto pledged an annual £150 tax break for basic-rate taxpayers but David Cameron has now hinted it could be extended to higher earners.

Treasury sources denied any change on tax breaks was in response to the reaction to the child benefit cuts.

[Prufrock]

I'm sure mine more than cover the fact I currently get child benefit.

Exactly as it should be, too.

So are you saying I should get child benefit or not then? is the bit about whether your contibutions "cover" the benefit just a bit of smoke and mirrors?

I'd do away with it, Worthy. We've been down this path before.

We have been down this path before, but no-one has yet been able to explain to me, why, given all the posters on here parents will have had the benefit - it's now so wrong?

Smacks of "I'm alright Jack-ism" to me.

My folks got it, great, I have no kids so I want no part of it...

"You've got a generation raised on the welfare state,
Enjoyed all its benefits and did just great,
But as soon as they were settled as the richest of the rich,
They kicked away the ladder, told the rest of us that life's a bitch".

[Bruce Rioja]

The government has indicated it plans a tax break for married couples by 2015, amid anger over plans to cut child benefit for top rate taxpayers.

The Tory manifesto pledged an annual £150 tax break for basic-rate taxpayers but David Cameron has now hinted it could be extended to higher earners.

Treasury sources denied any change on tax breaks was in response to the reaction to the child benefit cuts.

So what about couples that live together but aren't married? Same sex couples that have a civil partnership, or don't? I suppose all that's 'too complicated' too. I know, I know, I voted for them, but to say that the stuff that they've come out with over the past two days hasn't been particularly well thought through is an embarrassing understatement.

[Worthy4England]

Ah, so you actually need the state to take your money off you and then give it you back so that you're kids are looked after? Strange. I thought you could be trusted. See, that's why I'd do away with it - we're all grown ups and are responsible for our own actions. It's Nowt to do with how well Jack is.

No, I'd much rather they didn't take it off me in the first place thanks. But seeing as they do, I'm always happy to get some back. I agree with it being means tested - which ever way they work it out I won't personally be impacted.

[thebish]

The government has indicated it plans a tax break for married couples by 2015, amid anger over plans to cut child benefit for top rate taxpayers.

The Tory manifesto pledged an annual £150 tax break for basic-rate taxpayers but David Cameron has now hinted it could be extended to higher earners.

Treasury sources denied any change on tax breaks was in response to the reaction to the child benefit cuts.

So what about couples that live together but aren't married? Same sex couples that have a civil partnership, or don't? I suppose all that's 'too complicated' too. I know, I know, I voted for them, but to say that the stuff that they've come out with over the past two days hasn't been particularly well thought through is an embarrassing understatement.

"supporting" marriage through the tax system ranks as one of the most ludicrous and stupidly ideological policies Cameron has strapped his knob to.... it's pathetic in every way.

Cameron is now making policy on the hoof - reacting to a few bad headlines and the fear of some bad public opinion... I wonder of he took the time to consult Cleggy first?

[thebish]

Ah, so you actually need the state to take your money off you and then give it you back so that you're kids are looked after? Strange. I thought you could be trusted. See, that's why I'd do away with it - we're all grown ups and are responsible for our own actions. It's Nowt to do with how well Jack is.

No, I'd much rather they didn't take it off me in the first place thanks. But seeing as they do, I'm always happy to get some back. I agree with it being means tested - which ever way they work it out I won't personally be impacted.

Please tell me I didn't just see someone from the UK describing the possibility that they might or might not be "impacted"..... please!

[Bruce Rioja]

Ah, so you actually need the state to take your money off you and then give it you back so that you're kids are looked after? Strange. I thought you could be trusted. See, that's why I'd do away with it - we're all grown ups and are responsible for our own actions. It's Nowt to do with how well Jack is.

No, I'd much rather they didn't take it off me in the first place thanks. But seeing as they do, I'm always happy to get some back. I agree with it being means tested - which ever way they work it out I won't personally be impacted.

Well that's you alright then, Jack.

Of course it's nice to get some back if you've shelled out, possibly even nicer to get some back if you haven't. My point is don't take it off people in the first place - don't give it back - just do away with it.

[thebish]

do away with tax?

[Bruce Rioja]

"supporting" marriage through the tax system ranks as one of the most ludicrous and stupidly ideological policies Cameron has strapped his knob to.... it's pathetic in every way.

I know that Worthy has me down as an I'm-alright-Jack sort of guy, but that's up to him. I couldn't agree more with you regarding married person's tax allowance, and couldn't understand why I should receive a preferential tax rate when we got married than when we simply lived together first. Where was the benefit to the country in our getting married?

[Prufrock]

"supporting" marriage through the tax system ranks as one of the most ludicrous and stupidly ideological policies Cameron has strapped his knob to.... it's pathetic in every way.

I know that Worthy has me down as an I'm-alright-Jack sort of guy, but that's up to him. I couldn't agree more with you regarding married person's tax allowance, and couldn't understand why I should receive a preferential tax rate when we got married than when we simply lived together first. Where was the benefit to the country in our getting married?

The answer is of course, there isn't, but it's coming about because they are playing up to the tradititional Tory voters, those who use phrases like 'family values' as synonyms for hating gays. In fairness, I agree with the idea of making it means tested, though I don't think that threshold is high enough. It may be up here, but it isn't darn sarf. However the system for how they decide it seems ludicrous.

[thebish]

"supporting" marriage through the tax system ranks as one of the most ludicrous and stupidly ideological policies Cameron has strapped his knob to.... it's pathetic in every way.

I know that Worthy has me down as an I'm-alright-Jack sort of guy, but that's up to him. I couldn't agree more with you regarding married person's tax allowance, and couldn't understand why I should receive a preferential tax rate when we got married than when we simply lived together first. Where was the benefit to the country in our getting married?

or living together...

I just don't see it as a function of the govt. to favour one kind of life set-up over another.

you could be single, you could live with your mother, you could be married, you could live together with one or more partners of either gender, you could be in a civil partnership - all valid choices...

what business is it of the govt to promote one over the others though the tax system?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Ah, so you actually need the state to take your money off you and then give it you back so that you're kids are looked after? Strange. I thought you could be trusted. See, that's why I'd do away with it - we're all grown ups and are responsible for our own actions. It's Nowt to do with how well Jack is.

No, I'd much rather they didn't take it off me in the first place thanks. But seeing as they do, I'm always happy to get some back. I agree with it being means tested - which ever way they work it out I won't personally be impacted.

Please tell me I didn't just see someone from the UK describing the possibility that they might or might not be "impacted"..... please!

OED:
Impact verb intransitive
b. fig. To have a (pronounced) effect on.
1935 W. G. HARDY Father Abraham 370 For there was about them an air of eagerness and of shuddering expectation which impacted on his consciousness and fascinated even while it repelled him. 1956 Oxf. Mag. 8 Nov. 81/1 The Magazine.. is not the place for consideration of national and international events except in so far as they impact on Oxford.

[Montreal Wanderer]

"supporting" marriage through the tax system ranks as one of the most ludicrous and stupidly ideological policies Cameron has strapped his knob to.... it's pathetic in every way.

I know that Worthy has me down as an I'm-alright-Jack sort of guy, but that's up to him. I couldn't agree more with you regarding married person's tax allowance, and couldn't understand why I should receive a preferential tax rate when we got married than when we simply lived together first. Where was the benefit to the country in our getting married?

or living together...

I just don't see it as a function of the govt. to favour one kind of life set-up over another.

you could be single, you could live with your mother, you could be married, you could live together with one or more partners of either gender, you could be in a civil partnership - all valid choices...

what business is it of the govt to promote one over the others though the tax system?

FWIW over here people of the opposite sex who live common law (i.e without benefit of the bish) are equivalent to married for tax and other purposes after one year of cohabitation. Same sex couples who marry are, well, married. I'm not 100% sure of same sex unmarried couples, though the common law approach should apply. Menages a trois ou quatre etc probably do not get tax break beyond the prime couple but have our profound admiration (or sympathy depending). Living with a parent does not confer a benefit for tax purposes.

[Worthy4England]

"supporting" marriage through the tax system ranks as one of the most ludicrous and stupidly ideological policies Cameron has strapped his knob to.... it's pathetic in every way.

I know that Worthy has me down as an I'm-alright-Jack sort of guy, but that's up to him. I couldn't agree more with you regarding married person's tax allowance, and couldn't understand why I should receive a preferential tax rate when we got married than when we simply lived together first. Where was the benefit to the country in our getting married?

No the point I'm making is once you start to tinker with the basis of the welfare state/state funding for <whatever> using how much it impacts you as an individual, it starts to fall apart.

Non-drinkers won't want to pay for hospital treatment for drinkers, non smokers won't want to pay hospital treatment for smokers, non-readers (or people who buy their own books) won't want to fund libraries and so on and so forth. Being particularly athletic myself, I might not want to pay for any compression injuries suffered by people jogging 25 miles a day. etc. and so forth. blah, blah.

So the argument "why should I have to pay for <something I don't see the benefit of>", is usually fairly one-way.

[thebish]

all this talk of universal benefits... some things should remain universal:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/