Lord Duckhunter

I've been looking into it, and a couple of degrees have caught my eye. Surf Science and Technology at Plymouth Stand-up Comedy at Kent and Salford Brewing & Distilling at Heriot-Watt University Golf Management Studies at Birmingham and finally Stained Glass Window Studies at Swansea Institute If I could spend a couple of years lounging around doing one of the above, and the tax payer picks up the tab, think of the contribution I could make to Society.

My Mrs went back to uni as a mature student to become a midwife. Her degree was paid for by the NHS (us), but following qualifing you have to work for the trust for 2 years at roughly half wages to pay some back. It varies from trust to trust , some are 1 year. It seems like an entirely sensible arrangement and in my Mrs case she felt if was right that she contributed in this way.

If the goal had been chalked off, then it may have ended 1-1. We would have then gone out on Pens.

The Observer, fair and balanced towards a Tory policy,dont make me laugh.If you want "fair and balanced" what about the IMF, or do they not count on the basis that they backed George's running of the ecomony.

Well he hasn't made a very good start so far, writing exclusively for the News of the World (isn't it funny how they hate the Murdoch press, but go running to them as soon as they want their "message" out-hypercrites)that the planned Govt cuts were worse than Mrs Thatchers. As Andrew Neil pointed out of the Andrew Marr show this morning, Alister Darling had already said the same about the cuts Labour was proposing. All the guests agreed that it was a gaff and that he should have spent the weekend reading up on his brief and kept his mouth shut.

It is just given to families regardless of need. If it was abolished and then different tax rates applied to the number of children you have. Your tax code would be different depending on the number of children you had. That way the money could be really targetted at the people who really need it, if it was paid at a % rate then the more you earn the less of it you get. If you're on benefits you get the child benefit element added to your benefits.As benefits are means tested, then at a stroke and for no extra cost, child benefit becomes means tested.For tax payers it is based on salary, which like all tax rates is a form of means testing.It was easy enough to have a married mans allowence in the past, what I'm proposing is the same, only with children.

I dont agree with what they've done, I dont think it goes far enough. There should be no Family benefit in families with a higher rated tax payer in it. However they have thought it through, they have just not laid it out in the correct way. Instead of spinning it to conference, they should have announced it in Parliament (something they critisised Labour for), but they should have laid out the costs for all to see. Ie, "This is not perfect and there are anomalies in the system, however it affects very few familes and would cost Xmillion to sort out".The problem with it was it was announced whilst every Tory and his dog was going on about "fairness". The fact that the lefties are complaining that this is unfair on families that on the whole are pretty wealthy, just shows how badly they've handled the whole thing. At the end of the day you either believe in universal welfare or you dont. I dont, because we can't afford it and I dont believe the state should be dishing out money to people like myself, however much it's welcome and helps towards our family holiday

The ones that do my head in are the ones that leave early or go down to the bars before half time.There was a bloke near me for the Boscombe game moaning to his mate about the price of football. Then on the 40th minute he gets up and goes down to the bar area, I was going to point out the irony of him not getting his moneys worth, but he looked pretty hard.When I think of the number of goals I've seen just before the end or just before half time, some great ones as well. Why would you do it? Would you leave a concert or cinema before the end. I can see it now, "went to see Paul macartney at the weekend", "did he sing Let it Be?", "I dunno I left 5 minutes early to aviod the traffic".

So you're against the Child benefit cut, so that's another billion you need to find from somewhere.Will this billion be targeted at 40% tax payers, or people on the lower rate? Do you really think that the Govt and all the treasury advisers weren't aware of the anomlies in the system, that Osborne and he's advisors, not to forget masses of civil servants are so simple that they didn't see what was obvious to everyone. What they were guilty of was bad politics. I've no doubt that their reasoning was that if affects very few families and that to means test it would cost millions of the billion they were saving, defeating the object. What they've done is simple, cheap and painless (dont tell me people on £40,000 need this benefit to survive).Personally I would abolish child benefit but acknowledge children in the tax and benefit system. If the Govt believe I need an extra £1,000 , then tax me £1,000 less.The beauty of this is that the tax and benefit system is means tested anyway, so it can really be targeted at the people who need it.

When the previous Govt raised the income tax level to 50%, those people were "used to a certain income" but it was cut. Tough, they can afford it. Is that the basis that cuts can't be made, because people are "used to a certain income", in that case there would never be any cuts, never be any tax rises, what do you want? Govt policy based on the status quo, how can you make cuts if you cant touch people's budgets? Is your point that people on joint income of £80,000 should lose their child benefit, in which case you're cutting from more families than George, or is it that you shouldn't cut the Child benefit? In which case where are you going to get the billion from? Just to keep complaining about the unfairness of it without stating whether you think 40% taxpayers should receive £1000 just for having a baby, is complaining for the sake of it. There is a hell of a lot more unfairness in the benefits system than this percieved unfairness towards people who quite frankly are pretty well off.We didn't have the option of my Mrs staying at home bringing up our children, we could not have afforded it at the time.We pay billions and billions of pounds to people who are work shy, who work but still claim benefits, who pretend to live apart but live together,who make out they have bad backs or stress related illness, and who have no intention of ever finding work, perhaps we should look towards them before looking at the few 2 wage earning familes that have slipped through the net.When people on benefits can afford play stations, foregin holidays, wide screen tv's, new motors and 7 packs of fags a week there is something seriously wrong.Benefit should be a safety net to ensure that the most vulnerable are cared for. It should not be a lifestyle option and it certainly should not be dished out to people on £40,000, even if the wife wants to stay at home and look after the children. I've had 4 children and had thousends off the Govt in Child benefit over the years, we use it towards a holiday, why should the Govt part fund my foregin holiday each year?

Let us imagine that Child benefit never existed. In his first budget as chancellor George Osbourne decides that every parent should get £1,000 per child a year, regardless of the parents wealth. The Bankers, the City wizz kids, the professional footballers, the families from the Tory suburbs on £40,000 a year will all get this benefit. The lefties would be going absolutely bananas, why is George paying state money to rich families? Why is he discriminating against poor people who can not have children. Why are childless people subsiding a give away to rich people who choose to have children? People wonder why there is cynicism about Politian's, examples like this are why. Lefties opposing cuts to rich families, solely on the basis the Tories brought it in.

No but Selling our gold at rock bottom prices. Decimating our pension provisions Setting up tripartite regulation, rather than BOE to regulate the banks. Not putting any money aside in the good times. Paying people on over £50,000 WFTC. Being a major player in the illigal war. Abolishing the 10p tax rate Was.

Why do they all appear to be cut from the same cloth. Where are the "barrow boys" or wheeler dealers in the mould of Sugar? They all seem corporate yuppies, I reckon there are slaesmen up and down the Country who would have ****ed all over those clowns. The meat sellers in the market showed more savvy than most of them.

At least he wont go cold in his old age, he'll have £200 winging towards him whether he wants it or not.

Surely its not above the wit and wisdom of someone in this day and age to be able to sort this out. The fact is Sugar lives most of his life in FLA, does not want the money, does not need the money, and yet the Govt keeps giving it to him. If someone in Govt cant come up with a solution, then I suggest they get a private Company to do so. Their brief would be to administer the winter fuel payments in such a way that anyone living abroad, anyone who didn't want it and anyone who didn't need it (Govt would obvioulsy need to set up qualifing criteria) didn't receive it. In return the Private Company could keep £25 of all the £200 saved, saving the Govt a hell of a lot of £175. The lefties seem to think that more people receiving benefit is a good thing, that it shows what a caring, sharing society we are. We have a situation where people pay tax at a higher rate, but recieve tax credits, am I the only one who thinks that's complete and utter madness. Instead of giving Lord Sugar £200, instead of giving Wayne Rooney child benefit, we should be increasing the tax free allowence of people to ensure the poorest pay no tax and that going to work really does make you better off than staying at home.

Lord Sugar was on the One show the other night. He said that he receives £200 winter fuel allowence. He tried to send it back but was unable to do so. Even though he donates it to charity, it still comes from the tax payers pocket. Surely even the lefties realise that this is crazy, but watch them cry and moan if GO abolishs this benefit, for the rich.

Wasn't Lord Paul a non Dom?

I haven't seen anyone blame Ashcroft for the banking problems. Labour rewarded the bankers they are now blaming for the Country's problems.

He only had a fling, that's hardly in the global banking crash bracket. Anyway I'm not sure Paddy supports the coalition that much. Labour lefties spend their whole life blaming the bankers and yet they turned a blind eye to their gambling and in some cases rewarded it.

Fred Goodwin-Knighted in the Queen's 2004 Birthday Honours list, for his services to banking

Course I get it, it's not perfect and personally I'd rather see it cut for all families with more than 44K coming in, despite this affecting mine. Is the Lefties line that it doesn't go far enough or that it goes too far? The point about other charges and bus passes ect is also valid. My Father in Law is very wealthy, yet he gets Winter Fuel allowence and I believe free TV licence as well. I find a few of the sacred cows of the Welfare state bizzare. The obsession with free doctors visits is another. You see the Doc for free but then have to pay for a prescription. People are happy with that, but if you charged them £3 to see the Doc all hell would be let loose.

Sorry meant a week, but I'm sure you suspected that. The new proposals may not be perfect, but they are better than they were before. Personally as I posted yesterday the rate should have been 50%, before losing this benefit. I just find the whole double standards of Labour laughable. They had a reduction plan in place, but so far have opposed every single cut that the Govt intends to make. To see them sticking up for people who earn £1,000 a week is bizzare, but then again they were the party of the 10% tax band. They seem perfectly happy to bash the bankers, but pay them benefit if they have children.

Why did the Labour Govt pay child benefit to bankers and CEO's of FTSE 100 companies? None of the lefties seem to mind that, but as soon as the Tories come up with a solution, their suddenly all on the side of families struggling to make ends meet on £1000 a month.

By taxing someone at a higher rate of tax, the system is basically saying you're better off than most. The better off should not receive benefits in the present climate. The interesting question to the Labour chancers who will jump all over this will be "if you return to Govt, will you give this benefit back to higher rated taxpayers?" You can bet your life that their next election campaign wont include pledges around giveaways for people on nearly 1,000 a week. Would you rather the black hole left by Labour was filled by taxing people on less that £44,000 a year more?