Austerity Cuts – We Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 132 total)
  • Austerity Cuts – We Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet
  • Premier Icon bigjim
    Subscriber

    your ex wife is bloody loaded, she’ll never have anything to genuinely worry about.

    mattzzzzzz
    Member

    All she needs to do is sell the house and buy something more apportioned to her (above average) salary

    And if you feel so bad about it and would rather the children stay in that house then pay the difference

    1700 PA when earning about 2700 a month take home is nothing really, I suggest a troll or get a grip 🙄

    Edit just done the sums it’s about 3k per month net

    Premier Icon jonesyboy
    Subscriber

    **** me – at over £50k a year she’s minted. Our combined gross income is much less than her net income and we are ok. TBH she’s looking at the gov’t subsidising her big house. Cuts should start at combined income of 40k as that’s plenty.

    watsontony
    Member

    OP. get a grip mate. your wife is on 50k a year and enough disposable income to get a large mortgage. basically **** off with your first world problems. Try thinking about other peoples problems trust me some people have to choose between food and heat.

    seriously get a grip! you can clearly afford to pay for your children your self so stop moaning and get on with it. is £20 a week really your main concern?

    some on on this site really do not have a clue. not a **** clue

    yunki
    Member

    I’m quite quite tempted to send some of the families on our estate round to eat your wife and kids..

    although I suspect that the meat would be very fatty, and bitter and tinged with an acrid aftertaste of lofty delusion

    😉

    mattzzzzzz
    Member

    @ Yunki big lol!

    Premier Icon jekkyl
    Subscriber

    suck it up richy ex-husband guy. force your wife to buy a smaller house or move somewhere not as nice, it’s that simple.

    elzorillo
    Member

    My wife and my combined income is about half your wifes.. With sensible management we dont live too badly.

    MrSmith
    Member

    This comes at a time when she is about take out a big mortgage to buy me out of the marital home

    That’s her problem. Move somewhere cheaper. Negative equity? Tough **** .

    Ed2001
    Member

    Is the OP about austerity or the bitterness he feels towards his ex?

    this post would almost be funny if it was an attempt at humour, the fact that people actually think like this is frankly terrifying.. only on stw eh..

    empy
    Member

    Actually ex-wife will get to keep it if her current pension contributions take her below 50k. Hurrah!

    Premier Icon slackalice
    Subscriber

    Something to ponder on….

    The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud of the fact it is distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.

    Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to “Please Do Not Feed the Animals.”

    Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.

    Ha! 😕

    oldnpastit
    Member

    The conservatives haven’t won an election since 1997, and with thinkers like that working for them, I can’t see that changing any time soon.

    project
    Member

    My pension plan is to stuff the money down a grid and wait for a rat to pick it up and use it to make a nest, hopefully in twenty to thirty years time ill find the rats nest and some of the notes will remain intact so I can buy beans.
    It’s a lot like currant pension plans but the rats have tails and with luck ill have some beans..

    A point to note is Rats are incontinent, and almost contiuously urinate and leave a trail, and sometimes it does smell.
    After 30 years down a grid many rats will have urinated on your cash, with a rats life being about 2 years.

    Best to just send me envelopes of cash to invest in CRC vouchers, and bike bits.

    LenHankie
    Member

    oldnpastit – Member

    The conservatives haven’t won an election since 1997, and with thinkers like that working for them, I can’t see that changing any time soon.

    er..I think you’ll find ‘New Labour’ won that, but an easy mistake to make.

    khani
    Member

    A point to note is Rats are incontinent, and almost contiuously urinate and leave a trail, and sometimes it does smell.
    After 30 years down a grid many rats will have urinated on your cash, with a rats life being about 2 years.

    So it’s nearly as risky as paying in to a normal one then?
    At least they won’t charge me for the privilege…

    slackalice – Member

    Something to ponder on….

    The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud of the fact it is distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.

    Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to “Please Do Not Feed the Animals.”

    Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.

    Ha!

    What is there to “ponder on” ?

    That hungry children in the world’s wealthiest and most obese country should be compared to wild animals ?

    That they should perhaps be forced to fend for themselves or simply allowed to perish ?

    It’s things like that viral email which reminds me just how unpatriotic some Americans are towards their fellow citizens. And of course they invariably tend to be right-wing republicans. Hurricane Katrina was a headline-grabbing object lesson to the world in that respect.

    GEDA
    Member

    Tax funded free health care, tax funded free schools, tax funded police and fire service. When will this free loading end. People with money should pay for these services. I was thinking that the real thing that drags the economy down is the cost of land and housing. Massive cheap social housing building program that everybody would not mind living in to reduce the stupidly expensive housing in the UK.

    People with money should pay for these services.

    People with money are paying for these services.

    GEDA
    Member

    Yes they were paying for child benefits as well. That’s the whole point of a welfare state. Everybody pays in and everybody gets something out. Now though if the people paying in don’t get anything out why would they support it?

    TurnerGuy
    Member

    Surely we should restrict, or increase, benefit payments to the smarter, middle classes as they are more likely to have smarter kids, who will become higher rate tax payers, which will be better for our pensions.

    There’s no point sponsoring Wayne and Waynetta to raise a load of future dole seekers…

    mrmo
    Member

    Surely we should restrict, or increase, benefit payments to the smarter, middle classes as they are more likely to have smarter kids, who will become higher rate tax payers, which will be better for our pensions.

    you mean the people who have decided to delay children until there 30’s anyway, who have decided kids can wait until they are financially stable, until they have a house?

    There’s no point sponsoring Wayne and Waynetta to raise a load of future dole seekers…

    you mean the ones who choose to have kids late teens early twenties, who have decided that they have no point that the only way to get a council house is to have kids?

    Everyone i have spoken to about neo-natal etc. comes back with the same story.

    There are two groups, either very young or older, there are very very few women having first kids in the middle.

    I have wondered if average IQ will drop, there was a time when the less intellegent would be sent to war, down the mines, shipyards etc. places where man power mattered rather than out and out academic ability. But as we are told we are a knowledge economy and have outsourced so much heavy industry, it does raise the question of what to do with the less intelligent?

    Junkyard
    Member

    well we either
    1. help them
    2. let them starve – bit of social unrest i would imagine so probably not the cheapest option never mind the morality.

    Now though if the people paying in don’t get anything out why would they support it?

    If you need to ask you wont understand the answer

    Bit troll central or the heartless only come out at night [ not you ernie nice to see you]

    watsontony
    Member

    Bit troll central or the heartless only come out at night [ not you ernie nice to see you]

    some real pricks in tonight. You got to feel sorry for them, its not their fault they where born with a silver spoon wedged up their shitters. Walking around with a blinkered view on life, if only the shoe was on the other foot:TurnerGuy, slackalice and Spongebob.

    TurnerGuy
    Member

    some real pricks in tonight.

    some real gullible types around last night, you have to feel sorry for them…

    hora
    Member

    OP what was the point of your first post? I don’t understand. Are you having a bitter dig at your ex-partner? On a side note, why should we expect to receive government benefits if we earn over £50,000?

    patriotpro
    Member

    TurnerGuy – Member

    some real pricks in tonight.

    some real gullible types around last night, you have to feel sorry for them…

    Learn to capitalise before mounting your horse, I thought I told you that the other day. 😆

    Hora, I agree with your first question to the OP, but surely the side question is clear, although perhaps “should” would be better replaced by “do”?

    The foundations of the welfare state as laid out be Beveridge included the idea that the best way or structure to achieve welfare goals is/was to move away from means testing and insurance to a system where benefits were available to all (universal) but funded more by those who earn more money. So everyone should have equal access to all benefits irrespective of their income, but the wealthy should provide more to fund the system. Of course, this throws up anomalies such as child benefit, wealthy pensioners receiving various allowances etc and they make easy topics for politicians and others to make headlines with. But the law of unintended consequences and other factors warn against tinkering at the margin in order to make the news! The current structure of the Welfare State has endured for good reason. Like democracy, it’s not perfect (hence your question) but it is (arguably) better than the alternatives.

    Hence the answer to the question is people earning over £x expect to receive benefits because the universal model works better than the alternative however illogical that may seem!

    konabunny
    Member

    everyone should have equal access to all benefits irrespective of their income, but the wealthy should provide more to fund the system

    That’s pointless, though. If I’m a wealthy person, paying 350 quid in tax and getting 50 quid back doesn’t leave me any better off than paying 300 quid in tax and getting nothing back. (Hypothetical numbers, obviously).

    yunki
    Member

    Surely we should restrict, or increase, benefit payments to the smarter, subordinate middle classes as they are more likely to have smarter greedy kids, who will become higher rate obsequious mindless tax payers, which will be better for our pensions. leaders

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    That’s the whole point of a welfare state. Everybody pays in and everybody gets something out. Now though if the people paying in don’t get anything out why would they support it?

    Erm… that’s not the point of the welfare state at all. Its put there as a safety net for people who fall on hard times, and to care for the more disadvantaged in society. Its this that distinguishes us as a civilised society, as opposed to Barbarians like America.

    And also the main reason the Tories are trying to dismantle it. Because all this namby-pamby, pinko ‘caring for disabled people’ and ‘keeping the victims of the economy our rich friends destroyed at a subsistence level of income’ is bally well costing me money that could be going towards Tarquins school fees!!!!

    The OP seems to share your assessment though. So well done to you both

    Premier Icon miketually
    Subscriber

    there was a time when the less intellegent would be sent to war, down the mines, shipyards etc. places where man power mattered rather than out and out academic ability.

    There’s some rather large assumptions going on there. Are you saying that the only thing that determines the earnings of somebody is their intelligence? And that thick breeds think and smart breeds smart?

    TurnerGuy
    Member

    Erm… that’s not the point of the welfare state at all.

    +1

    One big cut that will soon begin to hurt people is the reduction/loss of the children’s allowance.

    Until this month, my now ex-wife was receiving around £1760 per annum for our two children. As she earns a few grand over £50k, she will get next to nothing. This comes at a time when she is about take out a big mortgage to buy me out of the marital home. She will also have all the bills I used to pay, so her era of austerity is going to hit her like a steam train. Means testing is so crude, not that I wish to defend my wife’s predicament – she chose that route and without any discussions about how how we might have mitigated the situation for the benefit of our kids – very upsetting, but I’ve a clear conscience

    Sorry – zero sympathy. She earns over £50k – over double what I earn.

    She does not have to take out a big mortgage to buy you out, you could sell and she could move somewhere cheaper. Cut your cloth, that’s what the rest of us are having to do. I resent my taxes going to give benefits to those earning that amount of money. I want them to go to those in most need – she isn’t, and neither are your kids, if she’s got that size income, plus whatever yours is, then your kids won’t be wanting for anything. There are kids growing up in serious poverty here in the UK, whose parents cannot afford to heat their homes or feed and clothe their kids properly.

    This kind of middle class woe-is-me attitude bugs the hell out of me – the austerity cuts have hit the poorest and most vulnerable who already had very little far worse. Your ex wife needs to be grateful for what she already does have, and for the fact that she isn’t in danger of losing her home due to housing benefit cuts, having disability allowance taken away or having the meagre wage supplementation that is tax credits for low paid workers cut or removed.

    Sorry for being harsh, but get some perspective.

    Erm… that’s not the point of the welfare state at all. Its put there as a safety net for people who fall on hard times, and to care for the more disadvantaged in society.

    Well said. And don’t forget, there but for the grace of God, Allah, Gaia or whatever, go all of us. People can lose everything in the blink of an eye – an accident, chronic illness, redundancy….today it’s your neighbour, but tomorrow it could be you or someone in your family. Would you not want there to be something there to look after them?

    Junkyard
    Member

    Of course, this throws up anomalies such as child benefit, wealthy pensioners receiving various allowances etc and they make easy topics for politicians and others to make headlines with. But the law of unintended consequences and other factors warn against tinkering at the margin in order to make the news! The current structure of the Welfare State has endured for good reason. Like democracy, it’s not perfect (hence your question) but it is (arguably) better than the alternatives.

    perhaps these anomalies are the unintened consequences and we can better deal with them now. It is also worth noting – the US constitutional righ to bear arms for example – that times change and so should policy.
    Its not about radical change it about tinkering iwth the edges to make it fairer and more responsive to the times we currently find ourselves in.
    For example I assume most think its odd that Alan sugar gets a bus pass and a state pension and a winter fuel allowance [ no idea if he claims to be fair]. Its obvious money is tight and there are far more deserving cases than him and the OPs wife on 50 k per anum for us to “help”.

    As for paying in – view it like insurance – do you complain every year because you have not been robbed or had your roof fall down. Someone else has and therefore they got more from insurance than you. Perhaps you should just stop paying to prevent this injustice as it is not like you need it right ?

    Isn’t there a difference between the “point” of the welfare state and the “optimum design” to achieve it. The point of the welfare state is indeed to provide a safety net for those in need (and mostpeople would agree the this does not include providing child allowances to households (?!?) earning (for the sake of a number) >£50k). But, and it is a big but, the best way to achieve this goal is the system that Beveridge introduced which ironically (?) does include universal access to all benefits as odd as this seems. A key criteria for a welfare system has to be take-up rates and there is plenty of evidence that suggests an inverse relationship between take up rates and means testing.

    But at end of the day this is classic BS politics. We are talking of the pimple on the elephant’s bottom of the level of UK debt. But the emotive nature of the topic here makes it an easy political goal to score even thought it will have limited impact on the end result (or even the opposite effect). Plus ca change!

    X-post there JY. I take part of your point, but isn’t part of the reason why the welfare and tax system is such a mess at present the very fact that both have been subject to constant tinkering and interference. Woods and trees springs to mind!

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    Its the see-sawing of the tax (and welfare) system that’s created the present shambles. The labour party, when in power, try to level the playing field through taxation. Th Tories once back in, rapidly shift the balance the other way.

    For instance, tax credits to boost incomes of the lower paid, and creating questionable public sector jobs in areas of high unemployment (which coincidentally tend to be in labour voting areas).

    The Tories then get in and give tax breaks to their rich friends in the city, and throw some bones to the upper middle class (hence the existence of government benefits being paid to people earning 50k+). All to be paid for by the removal of benefits to those a the bottom.

    At the end of the day, the ‘benefits’ system is the ultimate political football. And so it goes on……

    Except Binners that doesn’t seem to be what has happened. Under a Tory, sorry coalition, government, lower income families are paying less tax and higher income more tax than they did under Labour. Plus the latest wheeze is actually targeting (negatively) natural Tory voters. The irony of UK politics and economics never fails!

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 132 total)

The topic ‘Austerity Cuts – We Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet’ is closed to new replies.