If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
In what way have you been let down ?
That makes no sense what so ever.
You enquired as to the writer/speaker of the quote in a way to make that of most importance rather than what is actually said/written.
No, I just asked some details about it.
After all the message of world peace is highly important, doesnt mean it will ever happen does it!
Law Lord, Lord Clyde (presiding over a tax case)
Which you could have put in your post, 18 posts ago in this thread, or one of your many posts afterwards.
Your intent is to just rile people up in here, and I think you enjoy the argument more than the point you are trying to make sometimes.
I am not arguing, merely exploring ideas.
Aladdin didn't ask you for a reference. He wanted a direct answer to a direct question.
To be honest, GoS, I don't believe that you are of any benefit to this site. You do not engage debate or discuss anything without giving the impression that you are hiding behind some pseudo-intellectual, psychological, esoteric code.
I have never seen you display any compassion for other human beings on here. Aladdin may well get overly emotional about things (he is Latin, after all) and while I often do not care for his politics, I do know that he cares for humanity in a way that you could never understand.
This is all some sort of game to you yet this is a place where you COULD change peoples views for the better, if you weren't so deceived by your own sense of superiority and importance. This is predominantly a TEEN site and unless you are prepared to engage in a way that is inclusive to teen sensibilities, may I respectfully suggest that you find another board where you method of communication would be more welcome? There is nothing for you here and to be frank, you have nothing to offer us. :thumb:
Whilst they may be true, I'm not sure that they should do it at our expense, or more that they should have loads but that we should cut support to those who have nothing.
Of course two-income families are going to have a distinct advantage.
I seriously don't have a problem with the principle in play here and I'm one of those who will miss out. I agree that no-one earning over £44k should get CB, but I would apply that to the household and not just the individual.
To suggest that a single income of £44k is too much but then to say that two incomes of £22k (when that would mean less tax paid and therefore greater net income) isn't enough is, well, just dumb.
Interestingly, this actually sounds like a Labour Policy rather than Tory. That confused me a little
If so, will this also in turn mean the abolition of Child Benefit for people on a lower income than £44k (my sources say £35k+)?
You have to hand it to the Tories though. Only they could put the "N" into "cuts".
But it's OK, because the conservatives are going to war on housing costs. (well, the amount they will pay in housing benefits)
The tories are all bloody mad the whole lot of them.
They screw you for going to Uni, they screw you for getting a well paid job, they screw you for any hint of success, they screw you for saving for a pension.
All you ever hear now is the tories blaming Labour for everything, well guess what Camamoron most of this shite is down to the the last bloody tory goverment anyway.
Just as there is a hint of economic recovery they decide to take away money from the high earners aka high spenders, resulting in less spending which means no growth/ no recovery.
Good plan !!
Of course not. We can't have the Gays or single parents getting any funny ideas about equality - t'would be beyond the pale.
Is this the same allowance that was being touted before the election, or at least the same thing manifested in another form?
Or single people.
Why should I be financially worse off because I'm single? Oh I forgot, I already am - 1 person earning £40k per year = £6475 tax free. 2 people earning a total of £40k - £12950 tax free.
So why cant I get 9 months leave for when I have a kid?
£12,950 a year tax free for 2 people is still the same per person.
I dont see how you can say financially worse off, they also pay combined, twice as much tax as you do.
Single people would fall foul of the tax breaks for married people.
Now in comparision to others, yes they will be. However it always is the case of the have's and have nots, just because someone gets something that you dont, doesnt actually mean you are any worse off in personal circumstance, it just means you are worse off in "comparison" to others.
How about we do away with tax breaks and credits all together? Let people fend for themselves, oh wait that will hit the poorest the hardest, so lets give them some money, then the slightly less poor complain that they are "worse off" because they are slightly richer, no they are not, they just dont get something that they never did in the first place.
I'm not really sure what you're arguing for or about.
Do you see all tax breaks aimed at identifiable groups as synonymous? That because one group benefits while others don't, all group-based breaks are equally helpful and fair?
It's easy to grasp the idea that a tax break aimed at (straight) married couples isn't directly dipping a hand into the pocket of single folk, but that doesn't make it equitable.