Blog : Posts tagged with 'finances'

*

Money money money

In which we make some political predictions


It’s Wednesday morning, and in a few hours time Chancellor Darling will stand up in Parliament and give the Budget speech. Back in 2006, I tried to predict what would be in then-Chancellor Brown’s budget, and, for someone making random stuff up on the spot, I did surprisingly well. So I thought I’d try the same thing again this year. Here is: the Symbolic Forest Budget 2009.

  • Higher taxes for old cars
  • Tax rebates for new cars
  • Increases to Recruitment Subsidy payments
  • Lower taxes on gin*
  • In fact, lower taxes on everything in the hope you’ll spend more money
  • Creation of a new Law of Prarial for merchant bankers. New legislation to enable majority shareholders to retrospectively alter company directors’ contracts.
  • Promise to save money but in vague unspecified ways such as “efficiency”, like the Tories said they’re going to do

Just a few guesses for you there. Let’s see how I do.

Regular reader E. Shrdlu (of Clacton) writes: “Law of Prarial? Recruitment Subsidy payments? This is all getting a bit serious, isn’t it? I don’t even know what a recruitment subsidy is.”

No, neither does anyone else, I think, which is why they don’t seem to have had much effect.

* I put this one in last time – well, I can keep hoping

One comment. »

Keyword noise: , , , , ,

*

Credit where it’s due

In which things go back to money


Thanks for all the comments on financial equality within relationships. Using the term “sexual equality” was a bit of a red herring, really,* because it wasn’t really anything to do with gender at all, other than that I wanted to find out who would automatically assume that it was all about a man who didn’t want his female partner to have any control over their finances.

And the answer is: it is all good, and there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. P is (so far as I can tell, because I’ve never met R) the more sensible and level-headed of the two. R accepts (I’m told) that he is incapable of looking after money, so lets P get on with it. Moreover, R is unable to get any sort of credit card. Why is a mystery, because he has a mortgage and a clean credit record so far as he can tell; but the fact is, I’m told, that he’s always been turned down. So P is in charge of everything.

It’s all good. What’s more interesting, though, is why we** thought it might not have been. A bare statement of facts never tells the whole story.

* or “mistake”, you could say.

** or, “you, the readers,” rather

No comments yet. »

Keyword noise: , , , , , ,

*

Search this site

*

Contact

E: feedback [at] symbolicforest [dot] com

IM: Ask me if you'd like to know

*

Post Categories

Artistic (118)
Dear Diary (349)
Feeling Meh (48)
Geekery (109)
In With The Old (34)
Linkery (37)
Media Addict (164)
Meta (79)
Photobloggery (94)
Political (113)
Polling (7)
Sub category (19)
The Family (31)
The Office (70)
Unbelievable (53)