Your Top random 10 policies

[trev]

8. See my comment earlier re tax credits - I'm sure FD's of large companies do calculations working out how my the tax payer will be paying via the credits system.

9. It is already tested - anyone earning as a higher rate earner gets it reduced or withdrawn completely:

https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit-tax-charge

I knew about that mate but the point was, I could earn £49,999, Mrs Trev could earn the same and we would still qualify for Child benefit on a joint income of just shy of £100 k.
We'd hardly need it would we? that's why I think it should possibly only available to those claiming other benefits.

 

[Octopus]

I knew about that mate but the point was, I could earn £49,999, Mrs Trev could earn the same and we would still qualify for Child benefit on a joint income of just shy of £100 k.
We'd hardly need it would we? that's why I think it should possibly only available to those claiming other benefits.

hum, not sure that would work either - it would give people even less incentive to work or better themselves (see my post about tax credits above).

The whole system of handouts in the uk is a complete mess and needs an over haul - but none of the current crop of politicians have the "balls" to do it properly.

The biggest anomily is when you sign on:

1. If you claim contributions based JSA, it stops after 6 months, and if your patner works any income is deducted from your tax credits allocation.

2. If you claim income based JSA, it continues as long as you sign on and if your partner works any income is ignored from you tax credits allocation.

So you could have 2 families - side by side - and by the process of ticking one box and selecting income based JSA, they could be hundreds of pounds better off.

That is hardly fair either.

 

[trev]

So because of something which might or might not exist you'd continue to pay me and Mrs Trev public money even though between us we're earning just shy of 100 grand?

 

[Octopus]

So because of something which might or might not exist you'd continue to pay me and Mrs Trev public money even though between us we're earning just shy of 100 grand?

Well I do agree but its no different to the late Bob Crow earning £150K and living in a council flat and paying a pittance for rent

 

[trev]

Well I do agree but its no different to the late Bob Crow earning £150K and living in a council flat and paying a pittance for rent

Of course it's different, Bob Crowe will not have been paying a pittance in rent. He'll have been paying the full whack of it because of how much he was earning.
Whether social housing should have been refused to him is another matter entirely although.

 

[Octopus]

Of course it's different, Bob Crowe will not have been paying a pittance in rent. He'll have been paying the full whack of it because of how much he was earning.
Whether social housing should have been refused to him is another matter entirely although.

With the greatest respect, no it isn't.

He was in a position to buy and pay his own way and he chose to abuse the goodwill of the state.

As I previously stated the WHOLE system is a mess and needs a major rethink.

 

[trev]

I wish my edit button was working. I meant to scrub "although" as it makes no sense for it to be there

 

[trev]

With the greatest respect, no it isn't.

He was in a position to buy and pay his own way and he chose to abuse the goodwill of the state.

As I previously stated the WHOLE system is a mess and needs a major rethink.

He was paying his way. As much as his team of accountants would allow him to of course.

 

[Diddy]

Well I do agree but its no different to the late Bob Crow earning £150K and living in a council flat and paying a pittance for rent

Bob Crow was paying INTO the system. He could have bought it at whatever the RTB discount is/was but instead he paid in rent and leaves behind a state "asset".
Also your post re social housing implies that those in receipt of social housing are in some way subsidized by the tax payer ?
You must agree when I say that currently the way interest rates are being kept artificially low that in fact tax payers are subsidizing mortgages all over the UK .......Not to mention subsidizing the private rent sector in terms of housing benefit paid straight out the tax payer pocket right into the private BTL landlord.
Social housing although subsidized remains an asset......one we should NEVER sell off and that we should build millions more.

 

[Octopus]

Bob Crow was paying INTO the system. He could have bought it at whatever the RTB discount is/was but instead he paid in rent and leaves behind a state "asset".
Also your post re social housing implies that those in receipt of social housing are in some way subsidized by the tax payer ?
You must agree when I say that currently the way interest rates are being kept artificially low that in fact tax payers are subsidizing mortgages all over the UK .......Not to mention subsidizing the private rent sector in terms of housing benefit paid straight out the tax payer pocket right into the private BTL landlord.
Social housing although subsidized remains an asset......one we should NEVER sell off and that we should build millions more.

The rules should prevent people with such incomes from buying social housing. Full Stop.

 

[trev]

The rules should prevent people with such incomes from buying social housing. Full Stop.

Bob Crowe wasn't buying it though, that's the whole point. He could have and got a massive discount but chose not to.
The rules should also prevent people buying state assets at a huge discount.

 

[trev]

However, let's have your top 10 Murdoch.

 

[Octopus]

Bob Crowe wasn't buying it though, that's the whole point. He could have and got a massive discount but chose not to.
The rules should also prevent people buying state assets at a huge discount.

I didn't suggest he was buying it. My point about Bob Crowe is that people of such means shouldn't be in social housing!

 

[trev]

I didn't suggest he was buying it. My point about Bob Crowe is that people of such means shouldn't be in social housing!

So where are you going to draw the line?

 

[Guest77]

(11) Enquiry into why 300,000 people need food banks when they live in the 5th richest country in the World.

 

[Octopus]

So where are you going to draw the line?

2 x average earnings (and that would be house hold income)

 

[Octopus]

However, let's have your top 10 Murdoch.

1. All Council and Government owned “brown field sites” - to be used for building social housing for UK workers, rent based on income of household and no tenancies for life.
2. Council tax based on the value of house (with the upper limit removed and many additional levels added) plus the number of people in the household over 18
3. No religious schools what so ever
4. For businesses based outside the UK (for tax purposes) would be charged a percentage of turn over instead of corporation tax.
5. Scrap Income based JSA and Contributions based JSA so there is a single scheme.
6. Get rid of the PCSO’s and use the funds to employ more frontline police
7. Income tax threshold raised by 50% for people who are self employed PLUS allow them to make additional contributions via NI to top up their pensions
8. Reduce the number of MP’s so that each one would represent approx 100,00 people
9. Eligibility to become an MP = 20 years working in the private sector
10. MP’s expenses to be scrutinised by a “board” of normal people, all receipts for expenses of over £5

 

[trev]

I agree with a lot of that mate we have more in common than I'd thought
Why is the number of people over 18 relevant to number two though? Local authority services are not necessarily going to be used more by a house with 2 parents with 19yo triplets than a 2 parent, 6yo triplets house.

 

[Octopus]

I agree with a lot of that mate we have more in common than I'd thought
Why is the number of people over 18 relevant to number two though? Local authority services are not necessarily going to be used more by a house with 2 parents with 19yo triplets than a 2 parent, 6yo triplets house.

Local services, for example in Slough are collapsing under the pressure of the needs of the people living there. Slough has a massive number of HMO's filled with people from all over the world, working for little. In "my world" all those over 18 should be paying for the local community.

For those in Scotland could be in for a nasty surprise, whether they stay or go as the plans include allowing Scotland to levy a "local income tax" of 5%

Scots under Alec Salmond will be paying more whether they stay or go....

 

[trev]

Are those people using council services more though?