fiscal fun!!

thebish · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:06 am

OK - here's the BBC 2012 budget calculator

are you better off, worse off or unchanged??

It tells me that my family is £140 better off...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442946

Gooner Girl · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:13 am

Slightly better off I think. Just relieved they have put the child benefit threshold up to £50,000 a year. That will save us £1,750 a year we would have lost.

malcd1 · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:19 am

Gooner Girl wrote:

Slightly better off I think. Just relieved they have put the child benefit threshold up to £50,000 a year. That will save us £1,750 a year we would have lost.

Me too. £54 better off.

CrazyHorse · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:25 am

£341 worse off. Woo-hoo. I might have to start smoking just so I can give even more.

Looks like I'm personally funding thebish's, Gooner Girl's & malcd1's new improved champagne lifestyle. You're welcome.

Gooner Girl · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:32 am

malcd1 wrote:

Gooner Girl wrote:

Slightly better off I think. Just relieved they have put the child benefit threshold up to £50,000 a year. That will save us £1,750 a year we would have lost.

Me too. £54 better off.

Still think it should be done on joint earnings though. I knows it's being phased out gradually now after £50,000 but before you could have 2 people with combined salary of £80,000 claiming child benefit,yet in another family if one earned £43,000 and another £5,000 giving a total income of less then £50,000 it could be taken away? Surely that's just not logical? :conf:

CAPSLOCK · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:35 am

Indeed

Absolute bollocks, but then I wouldn't pay any child benefit

thebish · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:36 am

Gooner Girl wrote:

malcd1 wrote:

Gooner Girl wrote:

Slightly better off I think. Just relieved they have put the child benefit threshold up to £50,000 a year. That will save us £1,750 a year we would have lost.

Me too. £54 better off.

Still think it should be done on joint earnings though. I knows it's being phased out gradually now after £50,000 but before you could have 2 people with combined salary of £80,000 claiming child benefit,yet in another family if one earned £43,000 and another £5,000 giving a total income of less then £50,000 it could be taken away? Surely that's just not logical? :conf:

over £40,000 a year is an eye-wateringly huge amount of money for one person to earn!!

mummywhycantieatcrayons · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:41 am

Gooner Girl wrote:

Slightly better off I think. Just relieved they have put the child benefit threshold up to £50,000 a year. That will save us £1,750 a year we would have lost.

I don't understand what you mean by putting the threshold up when there wasn't a threshold before?

Gooner Girl wrote:

malcd1 wrote:

Gooner Girl wrote:

Slightly better off I think. Just relieved they have put the child benefit threshold up to £50,000 a year. That will save us £1,750 a year we would have lost.

Me too. £54 better off.

Still think it should be done on joint earnings though. I knows it's being phased out gradually now after £50,000 but before you could have 2 people with combined salary of £80,000 claiming child benefit,yet in another family if one earned £43,000 and another £5,000 giving a total income of less then £50,000 it could be taken away? Surely that's just not logical? :conf:

I know it looks illogical, but it all comes down to the practicalities of how we administer tax. At the moment, tax HAS to be personal, unless we revamp and rethink the whole system.

Gooner Girl · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:42 am

thebish wrote:

Gooner Girl wrote:

malcd1 wrote:

Gooner Girl wrote:

Slightly better off I think. Just relieved they have put the child benefit threshold up to £50,000 a year. That will save us £1,750 a year we would have lost.

Me too. £54 better off.

Still think it should be done on joint earnings though. I knows it's being phased out gradually now after £50,000 but before you could have 2 people with combined salary of £80,000 claiming child benefit,yet in another family if one earned £43,000 and another £5,000 giving a total income of less then £50,000 it could be taken away? Surely that's just not logical? :conf:

over £40,000 a year is an eye-wateringly huge amount of money for one person to earn!!

For those of you with no huge mortgage bill to pay each month it might be!

malcd1 · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:42 am

thebish wrote:

Gooner Girl wrote:

malcd1 wrote:

Gooner Girl wrote:

Slightly better off I think. Just relieved they have put the child benefit threshold up to £50,000 a year. That will save us £1,750 a year we would have lost.

Me too. £54 better off.

Still think it should be done on joint earnings though. I knows it's being phased out gradually now after £50,000 but before you could have 2 people with combined salary of £80,000 claiming child benefit,yet in another family if one earned £43,000 and another £5,000 giving a total income of less then £50,000 it could be taken away? Surely that's just not logical? :conf:

over £40,000 a year is an eye-wateringly huge amount of money for one person to earn!!

You are correct but it doesn't mean you are rich. Not when you have a wife and two kids to support. Now when my wife qualifies to be a nurse next year and gets a job, I may be able to afford a foreign holiday.

Oh and by the way. Thanks CH your donation is much appreciated. Ta. :wink:

Gooner Girl · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:44 am

mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:

Gooner Girl wrote:

Slightly better off I think. Just relieved they have put the child benefit threshold up to £50,000 a year. That will save us £1,750 a year we would have lost.

I don't understand what you mean by putting the threshold up when there wasn't a threshold before?

Gooner Girl wrote:

malcd1 wrote:

Gooner Girl wrote:

Slightly better off I think. Just relieved they have put the child benefit threshold up to £50,000 a year. That will save us £1,750 a year we would have lost.

Me too. £54 better off.

Still think it should be done on joint earnings though. I knows it's being phased out gradually now after £50,000 but before you could have 2 people with combined salary of £80,000 claiming child benefit,yet in another family if one earned £43,000 and another £5,000 giving a total income of less then £50,000 it could be taken away? Surely that's just not logical? :conf:

I know it looks illogical, but it all comes down to the practicalities of how we administer tax. At the moment, tax HAS to be personal, unless we revamp and rethink the whole system.

Proposed threshold then. Originally it was going to cut in around £43,000 which meant Mr GG would have been better off refusing a pay rise.

thebish · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:45 am

Gooner Girl wrote:

For those of you with no huge mortgage bill to pay each month it might be!

hmmm... but when you retire - you'll own a house - and then be able to sell it to pay for your nursing home fees... whereas.. I'll be homeless!

Annoyed Grunt · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:46 am

£308 better off, apparently.

malcd1 · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:47 am

CAPSLOCK wrote:

Indeed

Absolute bollocks, but then I wouldn't pay any child benefit

I actually am with you. But it must be for all not just middle earners. If you can't afford your own kids, don't have any.

If they insist on having child benefit then it should only apply to the first two. If you want more then the parents should pay for them.

David Lee's Hair · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:22 am

Bah 37p a pack of cigs screws me regardless of the tax breaks... Pre cigs about £330 a year saving, post cigs about £180... the train companies will soon eat away at that!!!

Gary the Enfield · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:47 am

£221.00 better off. We'll see.

BWFC_Insane · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:01 pm

thebish wrote:

Gooner Girl wrote:

For those of you with no huge mortgage bill to pay each month it might be!

hmmm... but when you retire - you'll own a house - and then be able to sell it to pay for your nursing home fees... whereas.. I'll be homeless!

Do you pay rent? Or do the church pay that for you?

thebish · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:05 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:

thebish wrote:

Gooner Girl wrote:

For those of you with no huge mortgage bill to pay each month it might be!

hmmm... but when you retire - you'll own a house - and then be able to sell it to pay for your nursing home fees... whereas.. I'll be homeless!

Do you pay rent? Or do the church pay that for you?

nope - no rent... it's a "tied cottage"

Gooner Girl · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:43 pm

thebish wrote:

Gooner Girl wrote:

For those of you with no huge mortgage bill to pay each month it might be!

hmmm... but when you retire - you'll own a house - and then be able to sell it to pay for your nursing home fees... whereas.. I'll be homeless!

Awwww. Poor Bishy! You can come and live with me if you like?!

BWFC_Insane · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:49 pm

thebish wrote:

BWFC_Insane wrote:

thebish wrote:

Gooner Girl wrote:

For those of you with no huge mortgage bill to pay each month it might be!

hmmm... but when you retire - you'll own a house - and then be able to sell it to pay for your nursing home fees... whereas.. I'll be homeless!

Do you pay rent? Or do the church pay that for you?

nope - no rent... it's a "tied cottage"

So when you retire all the money you've saved not paying a rent or mortgage can be used for your nursing home fees..... :wink:

fiscal fun!!

Who is online