LondonMix

Given there isn?t enough money to fund our current rate of expenditure, what are your spending priorities? For me it is: ? Programs directed at the most vulnerable / disadvantaged including educational subsidies ? Education programs that improve skills / quality of the workforce ? Infrastructure investments ? The environment ? Measures to tackle the shortage of housing as efficiently as possible ? Front line public services that have an impact on health and safety ? Security ? Any spending necessary to prevent collapse of the financial system more broadly With cuts to: ? Most universal benefits should become means tested ? Public sector pensions ? demographics and longevity make this necessary ? State pension --retirement age / system ? Setting public sector pay based on local wages ? Removing certain tax breaks for well-off seniors ? Tax increases that will genuinely raise worthwhile amounts more tax. I wince as I right that since as a high rate tax payer my take-home post tax income has fallen by 10% over the last couple of years (loss of the personal allowance has hurt the most)

DJ to try to answer your question on government debt. For each country its different. Most countries central banks hold foreign reserves of key currencies for various reasons. They normally hold these in the form of other countries gov't debt so central banks around the world own UK gov't bonds. Our own central bank also holds UK gov't bonds as buying gov't bonds is one of the way central banks manage interest rates and is the cornerstone of QE (intermediated via the private sector and commercial banks). Our commercial banks along with foreign commercial banks also are large buyers of gov't debt (historically gov't debt had the same risk weighting as cash for capital adequacy calcs and gov't bonds play a key role in access to certain liquidity facilities offered by central banks). Lastly, bond funds, particularly pension funds (domestic and international) are also major investors in gov't debt. For most countries, its domestic banks are the most significant holders and play a significant role in financing the budget deficit. The number of players and how interconnected they are, is why people are terrified of a major country like Italy or Spain defaulting. It?s almost analytically impossible to predict how bad it will be given the inter-links.

Wondering, after a debate that got going in the family room, how many of you would be shocked to learn that an individual income of 45k probably puts you in the top 10% of earners in the UK? Everyone talks of London being an exception but based on this government report, average HOUSEHOLD (not individual income) is only 900 per week and 60k household income makes you top 10% of households in the UK and top 17% of households in London... Anyone richer than they thought?! http://data.london.gov.uk/documents/FocusOnLondon2010-income-and-spending.pdf

Clare C- to be totally honest with you they are panicking about it, which is why I know all the details. A childminder around there costs about 700 per child so they can both continue to work with a household income between the two of them of 75k ( she brings home circa 1.5k a month and him 3k post tax) but with a huge change in life style.

Also, see if you will need neighbours consent based on the freehold agreement. Can't see why they would object. A friend of mine's flat in ED has a side return extension so it can be done.

That's not true. I have friends who each earn less than that and as a couple can afford a home of 250k on a combined household income of circa 75k (which is still above avg. mind). They are moving to Mottingham in Greenwich as there you can buy a 3 bed house for that price. The schools aren't bad either and its fairly green. Their future mortgage will be less than their current rent in SW London. If you are an avg worker in London you need to typically buy a house with a partner who works and live further out in an area most people on high incomes have probably never heard of :) Edited to add: No one ever thinks they are well-off or can fathom how other people live I?ve come to realise. One of my old bosses once told me over dinner that to live ?modestly? in London (ie small home, 1 basic holiday a year etc) you need to earn as a minimum 250k a year. Given that at most only a couple hundred thousand people in the whole country earn incomes at or above that figure and London is a city of 7million people I wonder how the sheer absurdity of that comment never dawned on him. The problem is that when you only socialize with people of your own socio-economic background you can start to lose perspective on how few of you there really are.

Mrs TP- you are right, everyone?s quality of life is going to go down. Since long before the financial crisis, the UK has been spending more than its taking in. This is not sustainable and the financial crisis of course has made it even less so. Balancing the books means spending less on services and / or increasing taxes. Either way, the old quality of life is gone and what we have to agree on is how to spread the pain in the most equitable way possible that actually works. I for one believe that the pace of cuts should slow down to avoid creating a vicious downward spiral regarding economic growth. BUT, costs must be cut even if they are spread into the future. Given that current spending levels were creating a deficit even during the boom times, economic recovery alone will not solve the country?s fiscal problems. Mrs TP Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As a matter of interest what is the correct level > of social poverty before one is allowed to > complain? > > We shouldn't be bringing everyone down to the > lowest common level but bringing everyone up to a > decent and most importantly secure level - if I > could be sure such ill thought out cuts to child > benefit would achieve this then great but it's not > going to happen. This time next year more > ordinary people will be worse off but definitely > not Mr Cameron and his buddies.

Clare C-- I agree the high cost of living in London (including housing and child care) will eventually force most families on 50k incomes out of the city unless something changes. More housing is needed and more affordable childcare options. Even though subsidised child care would mean higher taxes (particularly for those who are already high-rate tax payers) for me it would be worth it as I would prefer to spread the cost out over my entire working life rather than have it all concentrated during the early years of parenting. When my partner and I first did the sums it was eye-watering (still is)

I can understand that some might be shocked to learn how few people earn what they consider a rather modest income, but to continue to suggest that those earning 50k (and losing child benefit) aren't in the top 10% of earners by suggesting the stats must be wrong is bizarre. The Telegraph articles quotes tax statistics from this March and they aren't a sample, they are the entire UK population. With only 3.7m people earning 42k, I can't really see on what grounds you are questioning my earlier statement. None of that is to say that such an income makes you wealthy, particularly in London. Though again, the average income in London is only circa 28k so 50k is still well above average... Starting a petition to reform administration of child benefit so that it takes into account single parents and families with a stay at home parent is something it seems quite a few of us would support, so perhaps we should start a petition on that issue? On the website below, we can start an official in e-petition if people are serious about taking a stand. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

Amydown, the figures are representative. Only 300,000 people according the HMRC earn over 150k in the entire country and that includes all income including what is earned outside of PAYE system. The super-rich the article allude to who may fall outside PAYE are a drop in the ocean statistically within the 30 million + UK workforce. Its also a misconception that bonuses aren't taxed via PAYE. They are unless you are awarded shares etc which again is a tiny fraction of the population. To make it simple, only 3.7m people earn enough to pay the 40% tax rate (42k earnings) in this country which already is already 12% or so of the workforce. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/9161858/Budget-2012-Five-million-workers-in-higher-tax-band-after-threshold-falls.html.

This "fact" comes from the BBC amongst other sources... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8151355.stm 50K is when you start to partially lose child benefit. You lose all of it at 60k. 45k makes you a top 10% earner. 42k was just an example of why I think not looking at household income is unfair. Either way I would lose it but I think this element of the new rule penalises single parents and families that have a stay at home parent. I agree London is more expensive than the rest of the country but London never has its own tax code. If we created it for child benefit, you'd need to do it for income tax, stamp duty etc... ClareC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does earning 42k a year really put you in the top > 10% earners in the country? Where did this "fact" > come from? > > A family living on 42k in London will be far from > wealthy whereas in other parts of the country 42k > would go much further. > > I don't think this has been thought through very > well, surely cost of living should be a factor > too.

I know DaveR. In other countries, the tax system recognises that people at times organise themselves into family units and allows couples to file joint returns. I think HMRC should allow this option for those whose household income is below the combined individual incomes at which child benefit is lost. Zeban, I think most of the population would understand why this has been cut which is why reversing this would be political suicide for any government. I say that as someone who'll be losing out... DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree that the method of implementation is, to > say the least, imperfect. As I understand it, the > problem is that there is no central record of > household income, as opposed to individual income > - that's why applications for means-tested > benefits require the applicant to disclose whether > they live with someone else who provides financial > support. It's also the case that household income > is not stable - people split up, get back > together, move in with new partners - and > therefore not that suitable for an assessment > criteria. > > In terms of absolute fairness the question is > straightforward - should all taxpayers fund a > payment to anyone who has kids, even if they are a > higher rate taxpayer? There may be valid > disagreement on this, but unthinking opposition > based on ridiculous cliches about 'Tory cuts' is > not persuasive.

I Claudius- oldie but a goodie

This impacts only the top 10% of earners so I doubt the government will feel it can reverse this decision entirely while pressing ahead on cuts that have a broader impact. I would be in favour of making it more fair though by taking into account household income. Its unfair that two parents making 42k each (84k total) keep child benefit while a single parent (or family with a stay at home parent) making 50-60k loses it.

Here is the link as promised. Download the document "Starting Primary Schools in Soutwark". All very useful as it tells you if there was a bulge class, how many siblings got places etc. This information is on page 18 of the file for community schools. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2483/primary_school_admissions

Southwark reports the furtherst child who go in on distance criteria now. I'll post the link later this morning.

CCManager, thanks for joining the conversation. In your post you mention the significant number of children you serve as the need to prioritise access while others (not sure if they attend your centre) suggest the services aren't heavily used. Someone earlier in the thread suggested that centres were being forced to show that the service was reaching the target group or faced budget cuts, which is understandable. I suppose spending priorities during a time of cuts should be allocated to programs that most effectively help those in need. Can you shed any light on your situation?

Furley-yap, are you saying that there aren't at least 6 schools within the required 2km of you or that there aren't 6 of high enough quality? These are two very different problems with equally different solutions...

That and the organic meat... What's really depressing is how thrilled certain people are that they can brag ED isn't as crime free as it could be. Why is that a "win" for the working class? rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What dufferentiates the working class from the > middle class? Is it about eating sundried > tomatoes?

The press reports suggest over 100 people across London were arrested during the coordinated raid and that they believe they are dealing with a Chinese or Vietnamese gang.

I agree with all of the positive comments-- cycle to covent garden for work but I avoid the Elephant and Castle round about like the plague. There are lots of different routes into that part of London depending on where you live. I go via Kennington to get to waterloo and then over the bridge, voila! Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I used to do this from Marmora Road to Tavistck > Sq. Agree with above comments - and would add that > cycling around / across Elephant & Castle was > agreat way to sharpen up mind and responses early > in the morning - setting me up for the day ahead.

Wow, how long have you been together since your realisation? Your wife and you sound like you have an incredible bond. You are both very lucky. While I like to think I would fully support my partner in a similar situation and remain close, I doubt we could stay married if I'm honest.

Agree with everything Saffron says. If the NHS started attributing blame, that would really be the slippery slope. Who exactly would get to decide what risks we take in life are legitimate vs. unnecessary? Jumping out of a plane, not taking medication that is designed to treat your illness, smoking, high risk pregnancy? Once someone needs legitimate health intervention (so not cosmetic correction), the NHS has got to step in...

There is nothing underhand about it nor is it a moral judgement. It is simply a rough approximation for means testing, which is appropriate given the stated aims of the programme. You can't prioritise those most in need as you suggest with a first come first serve policy or by giving everyone equal access to the programme by limitting everyone to two sessions per week. By definition this is not priortising anyone if you think it through...

Very well said Saffron. Right now I wouldn't do it but who knows what my attitude will be in future. Personally, the outcome (when its badly done I imagine) isn't natural enough but I totally understand midivydale's motivation. Growing old gracefully is such a cliche. Unless you really let nature take its full course (no creams, no hair colouring) you are already fighting the good fight. The fine line between "not letting yourself go" and being too vain is always shifting. For the under 30s, Brazilian waxes (based on my anecdotal observations at the gym!), have become de rigueur and alas appears to now be considered basic grooming... For me, growing old gracefully is being happy to be the age you are and enjoying the stage of life you are in. If you have a nervous breakdown thinking about turning 40 /50, whether you use botox or not, your not ageing gracefully.