8089 replies to this topic

[Andrew aka Stuwy]

Child tax credits. Why the hell should anyone get a reduction in the tax they pay just because they have children? Children are a lifestyle choice so if you can't afford them, don't have them. Simples. So you're going to lose £1300 a year? I'll tell you what, cancel your fcuking £100 a month Sky TV package and get your priorities right. This may well offend those of you that have kids...... if so, never mind. Seriously.....I don't get it.

 

yes and no.

 

Its a lot more then £1,300 a year if one of you stops work to bring the children up... so no..

 

But yes, far to many people have priorities totally wrong

[Wolfstone]

Then there's fooking child benefit at £21 a week for the first child and £14 a week for each additional child. Greedy bastardos. grrrrr

[Sutol]

Ken, did you see the programme last night which was about a mum with 11 kids and expecting twins who was getting 40 k a year. Perhaps you shouldn't watch it as you might burst a blood vessel!

[Wolfstone]

I might just watch it on catch up Chris to get it all out my system.

[Ormes]

Child tax credits. Why the hell should anyone get a reduction in the tax they pay just because they have children? Children are a lifestyle choice so if you can't afford them, don't have them. Simples. So you're going to lose £1300 a year? I'll tell you what, cancel your fcuking £100 a month Sky TV package and get your priorities right. This may well offend those of you that have kids...... if so, never mind. Seriously.....I don't get it.

Absolutely agree.

[Sutol]

I might just watch it on catch up Chris to get it all out my system.

I take no responsibility

[Ormes]

All this "Men get paid more than women" crap. 20 years ago, was this a problem?... yes it was, is it now?... I personally don't think so! The way I see it, pay should be linked to how competent you are in your job, and competency can often be linked to experience. I have accelerated through "the ranks" pretty steadily throughout my career... now think, if I had given up work to have a baby and been off for a year, then came back to work part time at 3 days per week for the next 5-10 years, could I then expect to be paid the same as I do now? Nearly every woman who I have managed has either gone off on maternity for 6 months and come back part time, or been part time when recruited/inherited, and incidentally earn an FTE equivalent salary comparable to that of a full time male. I make sweeping generalisations here, but then so does the news... as the stories are based purely on narrowly focussed statistics (which are effectively generalisations!) Maybe this problem doesn't exist in IT, but does elsewhere, hence I have a blinkered view... or maybe, people are just looking for news stories based on little foundation... I genuinely wouldn't bet my VX on the answer

[Mangham54]

Bit of a generalisation Ken. We have a kid, we get child benefit, but no child tax credit (as officially I earn too much) but we are still always broke. Freesat only in our household, boggo £5/mnth broadband. Neither of us smoke, nor do we drink more than a beer a week each. Travel costs, food and Theo costs are my full salary. New car has been paid for by my parents, as the Focus collapsed in a heap last week. Mel is about to setup as a childminder, as other jobs would have meant paying more in childcare costs than she would be earning... Go figure. But I have and will give everything I have for the pleasure I see in my boy's eyes every morning when I walk into pick him up out of bed. Parents shouldn't, in my opinion, be the target of 'the government's spreadsheet'.There are bigger fish to fry, but they are harder to catch as they employ lawyers who can outwit the fuckwits in government. So rather than doing what is needed they target those who can't afford to fight back. But don't forget, without homegrown future taxpayers, we will have to encourage immigration to fill the jobs we have and encourage them to spend their money in this country rather than send it back to their families abroad. It will be pensioners they target next.

[Harry Hornet]

..two sides to every story..

 

..mine is my parents brrrought up 3 kids, mum never went to work until youngest was 14. Dad worked 47 weeks a year and 1/2 of Saturdays...and never got near any upper limit tax bracket..I can in fact remember doing a school holiday job and because I wasnt taxed bringing home more than him!!

 

never had hp / credit and paid everything in cash and never asked for benefits from the government

 

were we happy  of course we were

 

imo .."in general" too many expect handouts these days..if you want something then you should cut your clothe accordingly..Im with Wolf on this one.....just like the Greeks...alot have had it too good for too long..(there are some who do deserve but ....)

 

...me no kids...a choice we made....so why should I pay for other peoples....

 

HH.."wondering if Ive upset anyone by speaking my mind"..

[KurtVerbose]

People who leave the tap running when brushing their teeth.

[KurtVerbose]

Buying a load of cheese during a trip to the UK only to be told I have to reduce my cholesterol.

 

[KurtVerbose]

...me no kids...a choice we made....so why should I pay for other peoples....

 

HH.."wondering if Ive upset anyone by speaking my mind"..

 

I feel a bit the same, but for every sponger there are plenty of people doing their best but needing a bit of help. You and I would both help someone in need - just a bit different the state dipping their hand in your pocket and giving it to someone you don't know.  

[RabnaKS]

Child tax credits. Why the hell should anyone get a reduction in the tax they pay just because they have children? Children are a lifestyle choice so if you can't afford them, don't have them. Simples. So you're going to lose £1300 a year? I'll tell you what, cancel your fcuking £100 a month Sky TV package and get your priorities right. This may well offend those of you that have kids...... if so, never mind. Seriously.....I don't get it.

👍🏻

[booshtukka]

Nick. F*&king. Grimshaw. 

[Mangham54]

...me no kids...a choice we made....so why should I pay for other peoples....   HH.."wondering if Ive upset anyone by speaking my mind"..

  I feel a bit the same, but for every sponger there are plenty of people doing their best but needing a bit of help. You and I would both help someone in need - just a bit different the state dipping their hand in your pocket and giving it to someone you don't know.  

Bingo.

[the outsider]

All this "Men get paid more than women" crap. 20 years ago, was this a problem?... yes it was, is it now?... I personally don't think so! The way I see it, pay should be linked to how competent you are in your job, and competency can often be linked to experience. I have accelerated through "the ranks" pretty steadily throughout my career... now think, if I had given up work to have a baby and been off for a year, then came back to work part time at 3 days per week for the next 5-10 years, could I then expect to be paid the same as I do now? Nearly every woman who I have managed has either gone off on maternity for 6 months and come back part time, or been part time when recruited/inherited, and incidentally earn an FTE equivalent salary comparable to that of a full time male. I make sweeping generalisations here, but then so does the news... as the stories are based purely on narrowly focussed statistics (which are effectively generalisations!) Maybe this problem doesn't exist in IT, but does elsewhere, hence I have a blinkered view... or maybe, people are just looking for news stories based on little foundation... I genuinely wouldn't bet my VX on the answer

[Captain Vimes]

Lies, damn lies and statistics. I would be much more interested to understand pay inequality with a properly stratified sample controlling for factors such as life stage, experience and a host of other factors. Taking a mean is intentionally misleading.

[Mangham54]

Lies, damn lies and statistics. I would be much more interested to understand pay inequality with a properly stratified sample controlling for factors such as life stage, experience and a host of other factors. Taking a mean is intentionally misleading.

Don't really think you could ever get to a truly representative comparative set of values. There are far far too many variables at play. Like for like equivalences are the only real way to do it and how do you compare chief executive salaries in competing sectors. Even certain industries make the imbalance more probable... Take the childcare sector... Even to this day some parents find it weird for a boy to work in the sector and some are thought of as "pervs or paedos" just because of their gender. Employers are sensitive to this and actively avoid recruiting males. This sector is a terrible payer and therefore brings the female average down. We are at a point where there is encouragement for creating 'gender equality' in recruitment, but it rather lop-sided and favours females over men in most sectors.

Edited by Mangham54, 29 October 2015 - 06:35 AM.

[RabnaKS]

Many years ago now, I worked for a large company who paid a number of females the equivalent wage as what the engineers received. The engineers had completed apprenticeship's & had to understand the rubber vulcanisation process, the certain females packed felt in to moulds, clamped them & attached them to a rolling conveyor to be automatically dipped in solvent, so only the edges had solvent on them with no ingress! The reason, the Union convener was female & was a member of this team! Synical, I think so.

[iceman]

Not being able to copy and paste anything on to .org