E90Post
 


VIBE Motorsports
 
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum > BMW E90/E92/E93 3-series General Forums > Regional Forums > UK > UK Off-Topic Discussions > Osbourne = Lying Arsehole



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-04-2010, 12:36 PM   #1
NFS
Major General
NFS's Avatar
United Kingdom
112
Rep
9,216
Posts

 
Drives: 335i m-sport LCI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Osbourne = Lying Arsehole

Stupid Tory scumbag arsewipe twunting baronet

So the lying tossers are taking away our child benefit after all. Bloody Osbourne has just given every family with a higher rate tax payer a 3k paycut before tax.

Despite saying that he wouldn't do it before the election

Before the bastards were elected they were saying that the Tories would let families where one parent works share their tax allowances.

Obviously they didn't bother with that and to make matters worse they are now punishing families with a parent that looks after their kids again.

If 2 parents each earn 40K a year, they pay less tax (because they each have an allowance) and will still get full child benefit.

Wheras a family where one parent works and earns 80k a year, pay loads more tax (because they can't share allowances) and they lose their child benefit.

What happened to family values and the big society??? It's patently unfair.

A family with a parent earning 44k loses child benefit, but a family with 2 parents earning 80k between them keeps it? Idiots.
Cameron liked to talk about labour stealth taxes? This has a bigger impact on my family than any of those.

I hope all of the people that voted for these tossers are very happy.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 12:49 PM   #2
EddieL
Second Lieutenant
3
Rep
284
Posts

 
Drives: 320i M Sport
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Do you know why they are not taking into account household earnings?

Because it would be tricky to work out. This way is easier.

They know how much it hurts struggling families but can't be bothered finding a fairer way.

Why not just apply an across the board cut to save the same amount.
__________________
AW 320i M Sport|18" 193M|Black Dakota|Sat Nav|Loudspeaker System|Sun Protection + Grey Shade|Heated Seats|Visibility Package|
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 12:54 PM   #3
Snooky
Major
Snooky's Avatar
Scotland
13
Rep
1,165
Posts

 
Drives: Q5 S Line Plus; 208 Gti
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Livingston, Scotland

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NFS View Post
Stupid Tory scumbag arsewipe twunting baronet

So the lying tossers are taking away our child benefit after all. Bloody Osbourne has just given every family with a higher rate tax payer a 3k paycut before tax.

Despite saying that he wouldn't do it before the election

Before the bastards were elected they were saying that the Tories would let families where one parent works share their tax allowances.

Obviously they didn't bother with that and to make matters worse they are now punishing families with a parent that looks after their kids again.

If 2 parents each earn 40K a year, they pay less tax (because they each have an allowance) and will still get full child benefit.

Wheras a family where one parent works and earns 80k a year, pay loads more tax (because they can't share allowances) and they lose their child benefit.

What happened to family values and the big society??? It's patently unfair.

A family with a parent earning 44k loses child benefit, but a family with 2 parents earning 80k between them keeps it? Idiots.
Cameron liked to talk about labour stealth taxes? This has a bigger impact on my family than any of those.

I hope all of the people that voted for these tossers are very happy.
This one will hit us too NFS and, whilst I have said often that I was happy to pay a bit more tax to sort out the country for my kids generation, I think this is a very blunt instrument - your examples make the point beautifully. I heard a caller on a radio show give her personal example, she is a widow earning 45k bringing up 3 kids. She will lose her child benefit yet her sister and brother in law who earn c.40k each will not!!! HOW IS THAT FAIR?

I expected this to happen tbh and I hoped they would allow a sharing of personal tax allowances between married couples (I work but my wife looks after our kids) but I won't be holding my breath!!

It would be fairer to raise the tax percentage on higher earners that do what they propose. I fall into that category so I would end up losing out to a similar amount but at least that would be fair to all so I would not complain.
__________________
Still missing my E92 335i M Sport!
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 01:00 PM   #4
EddieL
Second Lieutenant
3
Rep
284
Posts

 
Drives: 320i M Sport
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

I would also imagine 44,000 doesn't go as far in the south as it does up here.

Imagine you live in a semi-detached house next to an identical family . The two families have three kids. You earn 45k and the wife looks after the kids. Next door earn 85k between them and they get 2500 in benefits to help out.
__________________
AW 320i M Sport|18" 193M|Black Dakota|Sat Nav|Loudspeaker System|Sun Protection + Grey Shade|Heated Seats|Visibility Package|
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 01:05 PM   #5
NFS
Major General
NFS's Avatar
United Kingdom
112
Rep
9,216
Posts

 
Drives: 335i m-sport LCI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieL View Post
Imagine you live in a semi-detached house next to an identical family . The two families have three kids. You earn 45k and the wife looks after the kids. Next door earn 85k between them and they get 2500 in benefits to help out.
Exactly, don't forget that the couple next door earning 85k between them also get double the tax allowances of the family where one parent earns 45k.



Idiots. Osbourne has made a complete muppet of himself.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 01:11 PM   #6
toxicnerve
Colonel
41
Rep
2,834
Posts

 
Drives: E92 335d M-Sport
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK

iTrader: (2)

No kiddies yet here but it's definitely part of (her) plan so we too will be hit by this.

They really need to think about this because it is in no way fair that if your neighbours both work bringing home up to 43,999 each they would still qualify whereas if you're a sole earner on 44,000 you don't. But then, since when was any government about "fair"?

Finally, it will always be the "middle" that takes the brunt. That's you and I my friends. Sometimes I wonder why I bother putting in a days work!
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 01:23 PM   #7
peterg1965
Brigadier General
peterg1965's Avatar
United Kingdom
56
Rep
4,138
Posts

 
Drives: MY12 Range Rover Sport HSE
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The place of dark satanic mills, UK

iTrader: (0)

a 'happy' Tory voter...

I guessed things like this would be on the cards, and I would not be surprised if there was more to come. The thin end of the wedge, what next in a few years time, means tested State pensions, so much for universality of certain 'allowances' (not benefits).

I cancelled the Z4 partly because of nervousness and a resigned expectation over this sort of thing, a slow chipping away and erosion of allowances and reliefs and an increase in taxes. Coupled with no pay rises for a couple of years and inflation above 3% spells tougher times ahead.

Fortunately the Child Allowance cut does not apply for a few years (2013) when my youngest will be 17, so it doesn't effect me much. I do agree though that the Tories have made a fist of it and it has a large element of unfairness about it.

I do agree with capping benefit payments to 26K max though.
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 01:44 PM   #8
pjs
Colonel
pjs's Avatar
58
Rep
2,560
Posts

 
Drives: F30 335d
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: NORTH

iTrader: (1)

I'm not surprised, and I'll take my medicine as I voted for them.

I can always remember getting the first child benefit and being bemused as to why it was just handed out.

Hopefully, to make it feel morally right, by the time its taken away ( I have 2 kids so thats 2 tanks of v power a month gone), they'll have sorted the beneifts system - I certainly like the concept of a univeral benefit so the dossing scumbags who take the piss lose out.

I know a few families where the child benefit goes striaght into a savings account for the kids when they are older, but for others it might be the thin edge of a wedge.

And come the next election, we'll have had some nice midlde class tax cuts to keep us sweet.

Last edited by pjs; 10-04-2010 at 01:44 PM. Reason: bad spelling
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 01:55 PM   #9
Rochdale Pioneers
First Lieutenant
Rochdale Pioneers's Avatar
United Kingdom
8
Rep
371
Posts

 
Drives: F10 520d SE
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Stockton on Tees UK

iTrader: (0)

I have no problem with taking child benefits off higher rate taxpayers (I am one btw) - it was an obvious cut both economically and politically.

But - and its a big but - Oik has completely arsed it up. It would be very simple to base the entitlement on household income - the entire tax credits system already does this successfully. But oh no, tax credits was a Labour invention and therefore devil spawn.

So instead Oik does something thats patently unfair, anti-marriage, anti-middle class and the polar opposite of what he supposedly stands for by penalising women who look after their kids.

Get the popcorn out folks, this one will run and run until Oik has to change his mind.
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 02:14 PM   #10
335diesel
Brigadier General
335diesel's Avatar
United Kingdom
56
Rep
4,009
Posts

 
Drives: 335d Touring
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Cornwall

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
I'm not bothered about it - TBH I don't think we should be entitled to it anyway.

They have to save money somehow - this is less nasty than other ways of saving money IMO.
__________________


E91 335d SE Touring

Also Land Rover Puma Defender 110 XS station wagon
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 02:19 PM   #11
quattrogmbh
Captain
11
Rep
633
Posts

 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Location

iTrader: (0)

I agree with the need to consider all options, its the entitlement thresholds which haven't been thought through in this case..

To quote: "The IFS drew attention to perverse consequences of the measures, which will mean a one-earner family with an income of 45,000 losing all its child benefit while a much better-off couple with an income of 40,000 each would keep the money."

I'd suggest writing to your MP to register your displeasure.. Far more effective than whinging on a motoring forum ;-)
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 02:26 PM   #12
acerboo
Brigadier General
England
57
Rep
3,686
Posts

 
Drives: e92 335d lci
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: kent

iTrader: (2)

if youve paid in your entitled to take out no matter how much you earn, but we have to rmember who got us into this shit and it was not the tories! i hope they target the workshy next.
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 02:27 PM   #13
doughboy
Major General
doughboy's Avatar
United Kingdom
85
Rep
6,384
Posts

 
Drives: E91 335i Sold.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK

iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 335diesel View Post
I'm not bothered about it - TBH I don't think we should be entitled to it anyway.

They have to save money somehow - this is less nasty than other ways of saving money IMO.
+1
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 02:31 PM   #14
RagingKileak
Brigadier General
United Kingdom
71
Rep
4,637
Posts

 
Drives: Modified Alpine White E92 335i
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Yorkshire

iTrader: (2)

I have no kids so am not affected.

Despite that, if he said he wouldn't do this and has then he should be removed from post or held accountable. It sounds like he has been intentionally fraudulent and if so, should face the legal repercussions.

Fat. Fucking. Chance.

Can't wait till the Labour contingent come along and 'told you so' because to be fair, they did. I'm in the unique position of being able to say that I think both Labour and Tory are lying, useless sacks of shit.

Matt
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 02:43 PM   #15
EddieL
Second Lieutenant
3
Rep
284
Posts

 
Drives: 320i M Sport
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 335diesel View Post
I'm not bothered about it - TBH I don't think we should be entitled to it anyway.

They have to save money somehow - this is less nasty than other ways of saving money IMO.

What if it's a massive vote loser and you end up with another 15yrs under a Labour government.

I remember someone on here saying they were quite glad the Tories got in as they would have to make cuts, turn people against themselves and allow Labour straight back in.

Everyone is expecting cuts but we expect them to be thought out and fair. This isn't, and in doing so he will play into the hands of the opposition.

45,000 is not a lot these days, we are not talking about people with money to burn.
__________________
AW 320i M Sport|18" 193M|Black Dakota|Sat Nav|Loudspeaker System|Sun Protection + Grey Shade|Heated Seats|Visibility Package|
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 02:46 PM   #16
Shoegazer
Gazed and confused
Shoegazer's Avatar
0
Rep
68
Posts

 
Drives: Z4 3.0i SE Roadster
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: York UK

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RagingKileak View Post
I think both Labour and Tory are lying, useless sacks of shit.

Matt
and the lib dem turncoats...............?
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 02:48 PM   #17
RagingKileak
Brigadier General
United Kingdom
71
Rep
4,637
Posts

 
Drives: Modified Alpine White E92 335i
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Yorkshire

iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoegazer View Post
and the lib dem turncoats...............?
Not really worth worrying about

Matt
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 02:51 PM   #18
335diesel
Brigadier General
335diesel's Avatar
United Kingdom
56
Rep
4,009
Posts

 
Drives: 335d Touring
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Cornwall

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Suggestions on how else to say over 1bn on a postcard then please...

I just don't see what it's for. Why should the relatively well off (ish) with kids get money back?

44k not much? It's a decent amount if you haven't taken the route of mortgaging and debting yourself up to the eyeballs as the previous government fell over themselves to encourage.
__________________


E91 335d SE Touring

Also Land Rover Puma Defender 110 XS station wagon
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 02:58 PM   #19
- Paul -
Major General
- Paul -'s Avatar
England
179
Rep
7,274
Posts

 
Drives: see above.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Yorkshire, UK

iTrader: (5)

Garage List
2005 320D SE  [5.00]
2005 645  [4.50]
Told you so.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 03:06 PM   #20
EddieL
Second Lieutenant
3
Rep
284
Posts

 
Drives: 320i M Sport
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

What's child benefit running at 10bn? 10% cut across the board = 1bn saved.

Even if your not bothered or affected to much you must see how unfair this is

I have a small mortgage and have always lived within my means but whatever way you turn this my family and a million others will have 1400 less spending power when the cuts take effect. This will have a knock on effect to lots of others as I won't be able to spend that 1400 eating out, weekends away buying electrical goods and so on.

Edit. Just read that back and it sounds like I'm spending our child benefit on all that shit. We actually save it, but I intend to continue the savings from my own earnings. That's what I won't be able to spend.
__________________
AW 320i M Sport|18" 193M|Black Dakota|Sat Nav|Loudspeaker System|Sun Protection + Grey Shade|Heated Seats|Visibility Package|

Last edited by EddieL; 10-04-2010 at 03:14 PM.
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 03:11 PM   #21
Mike in Hampshire
Lieutenant
6
Rep
536
Posts

 
Drives: None at present!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: England

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 335diesel View Post
Suggestions on how else to say over 1bn on a postcard then please...
Ok then - don't buy a brand new Trident nuclear system costing 20 billion.
Yes keep the nuclear deterrent, buy a system from the USA, or B&Q or whoever - lets say 5 billion.

There you go then, 15 billion saved. Sorted.

Of course, didn't Clegg promise the DibLems would do just that when elected? Funny how that's all gone quiet now they share power.

Mike.
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2010, 03:17 PM   #22
Rochdale Pioneers
First Lieutenant
Rochdale Pioneers's Avatar
United Kingdom
8
Rep
371
Posts

 
Drives: F10 520d SE
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Stockton on Tees UK

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 335diesel View Post
Suggestions on how else to say over 1bn on a postcard then please....
Remember that what we're trying to cut here is the deficit, not spending. SOrry if I keep explaining this on various posts, but its important that people can ignore the politics and understand the economics. The deficit is the gap between our income (tax receipts) and outgoings - and as we haven't suddenly started spending an additional 180bn a year we weren't doing before, its obvious that the gap is tax receipts falling through the floor due to the recession.

Think about it. We lost the tax paid on the vast profits from the city. We lost the tax paid by the million people who lost their jobs. We lost the tax paid on all the things these people used to buy. Never mind basic maths and sanity like this, we know it to be true because we cut 20bn off the deficit before the election thanks to the end of the recession bringing in higher than expected tax revenues.

Its much easier to grow away the deficit than cut it away. 1bn of aditional tax receipts means growth. Which means more people in work spending money. Which means more people in work etc etc. Or you can cut 1bn worth of jobs, lose that tax revenue, pay more benefits and away we go again.

So how would I raise the 1bn? Well I wouldn't object to 40% taxpayers like me losing child benefit if it was done on income. Make is that that households earning north of the 40% threshhold lose the benefi and you wouldn't be haing this discussion as it would be seen as fair.

But if Osborne wanted the cash, why did he let Vodafone off its 6bn tax bill? Why is he hacking so many tax inspector jobs at HMRC? Its almost as if the government has no interest in collecting taxes from the fabulously wealthy and wants to make the rest of us suffer instead. A Tory government. That can't be the case.....
Appreciate 0
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:11 AM.




e90post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST