Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Government need to save 12 billion off the welfare budget. They are proposing cutting housing benefit to young job seekers aged 18-21. The rumours are rife that this may increase to under 25's for job seekers. Plus tax credits may be included too. On the other hand - they have already reduced the qualifying period for Right to Acquire for Social Housing - from 5 to 3 years. Again - rumours are that the discounts given will drastically increase from £10,000 currently for RTA to a lot more - perhaps in line with Right to Buy - 35% after 5 years of a tenancy. So they take with one hand and give with the other? Seems slightly crazy to me - one group of people lose and another gains ? How does the tax payer benefit overall? " Necessary | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nobody wants cuts but do we want to end up like Greece? C..." No - but I'm never convinced they actually think through the full implications of some of the cuts they make. They don't see real people and the potential outcomes.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"More to do with removing the welfare trap that means being out of work is a serious lifestyle option. People trapped in a welfare system that reduces their incentive to work is what this government is trying to fix. Allowing school leavers to go from school to welfare is madness as was the idea that a single 16 year old girl can get pregnant and qualify for housing. Starting out in life after school on welfare is only going to end up with welfare dependancy and that would be no good for anyone." Some situations are complicated but the this is about right. A welfare existence is a lifestyle choice for many. Problem is you have generations growing up with no appropriate male role models in their life - as in one that goes out to work, at all. However, some people on the 'estate' make a decent extra wedge selling drugs and doing the odd burglary here and there. These are the role models for the disaffected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"More to do with removing the welfare trap that means being out of work is a serious lifestyle option. People trapped in a welfare system that reduces their incentive to work is what this government is trying to fix. Allowing school leavers to go from school to welfare is madness as was the idea that a single 16 year old girl can get pregnant and qualify for housing. Starting out in life after school on welfare is only going to end up with welfare dependancy and that would be no good for anyone." Have to agree with this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"More to do with removing the welfare trap that means being out of work is a serious lifestyle option. People trapped in a welfare system that reduces their incentive to work is what this government is trying to fix. Allowing school leavers to go from school to welfare is madness as was the idea that a single 16 year old girl can get pregnant and qualify for housing. Starting out in life after school on welfare is only going to end up with welfare dependancy and that would be no good for anyone." I agree everybody needs help every now and again and for people who have been made redundant etc and need a few months to get back on their feet that's what the welfare system is for but far to many get comfortable there and turn unemployment into a life style choice I've heard people say they wouldn't go to work when them get get their rent etc paid for them and this attitude has to stop | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"More to do with removing the welfare trap that means being out of work is a serious lifestyle option. People trapped in a welfare system that reduces their incentive to work is what this government is trying to fix. Allowing school leavers to go from school to welfare is madness as was the idea that a single 16 year old girl can get pregnant and qualify for housing. Starting out in life after school on welfare is only going to end up with welfare dependancy and that would be no good for anyone."  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...... So they take with one hand and give with the other? Seems slightly crazy to me - one group of people lose and another gains ? How does the tax payer benefit overall? " It isn't about benefitting overall, it's about bribing people to vote Tory. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We spent about 700 billion on benefits last year, and nearly 240 billion was spent on pensions, if we are looking to make a 12billion saving why not simply do a 5% cut on pensions, works out an average of £3.50 a week, doesn't seem like a massive issue to me? " why only pensions? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"i would like to know what sacrifices the rich are having to make to balance the books.answers on a postage stamp "Remember we are all in this together!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We spent about 700 billion on benefits last year, and nearly 240 billion was spent on pensions, if we are looking to make a 12billion saving why not simply do a 5% cut on pensions, works out an average of £3.50 a week, doesn't seem like a massive issue to me? " Tories can't cut old age pensions as pensioners are more likely to vote and most vote Tory. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We spent about 700 billion on benefits last year, and nearly 240 billion was spent on pensions, if we are looking to make a 12billion saving why not simply do a 5% cut on pensions, works out an average of £3.50 a week, doesn't seem like a massive issue to me? why only pensions? I just think that since it's the biggest drain on benefits it would be easier to implement taking it all from from this massive budget than taking 0.5% from some benefits, and 1% from a different budget etc. If that makes sense? " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"i would like to know what sacrifices the rich are having to make to balance the books.answers on a postage stamp "Why dont you look up HMRC tax rates and find out for yourself? As has been demonstrated and proven time and time again, the wealthy in this country pay more than their fair share of tax and are probably the most unlikely to call on it as most will send their kids to private school and most will have PHI. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We spent about 700 billion on benefits last year, and nearly 240 billion was spent on pensions, if we are looking to make a 12billion saving why not simply do a 5% cut on pensions, works out an average of £3.50 a week, doesn't seem like a massive issue to me? " So take from the people that have spent a huge chunk of their lives actually paying into the system? I see people on benefits drinking, smoking, getting tattoos, etc. The pensioners I know can barely afford to heat their homes in the winter. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If they want to save money on benefits why not give people an actual wage you can live off? Im a mother and ess is the breadwinner for the family, he works at least 40 hours a week and we are worse off than families who dont work at all. This is the reason why people chose benefits over work, you do nothing and earn more than working yourself into the ground. Also a big percentage of people claiming benefits are working families, give them a proper wage and they wont have to bump up to a standard living with working tax credits ect. Its pretty obvious there is an intentional divide between the rich and the poor. Yet where would the rich be without the poor, is it not the poor who do the jobs the rich wouldnt dream of? Is it not fair that they get paid a fair wage? Not in this world. Maybe one day the people of this world will open their eyes and say....hang on a second, who put a price on the planet... Who the hell owns everything and how did that even happen. Erm.....sorry end of rant. Peach" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We spent about 700 billion on benefits last year, and nearly 240 billion was spent on pensions, if we are looking to make a 12billion saving why not simply do a 5% cut on pensions, works out an average of £3.50 a week, doesn't seem like a massive issue to me? So take from the people that have spent a huge chunk of their lives actually paying into the system? I see people on benefits drinking, smoking, getting tattoos, etc. The pensioners I know can barely afford to heat their homes in the winter." I have to agree that taking from a pensioner who has worked all their life while the single mum with 4 kids who has never worked benifits stay the same seems wrong sorry if that offends but just my opinion | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We spent about 700 billion on benefits last year, and nearly 240 billion was spent on pensions, if we are looking to make a 12billion saving why not simply do a 5% cut on pensions, works out an average of £3.50 a week, doesn't seem like a massive issue to me? " why cut pensions off people who worked and paid in for 30-40 years but let some people who choose the lifestyle of welfare to continue abusing it. as someone has stated people do get laid off and need help for a while but people whose attitude is fuck work im better off on benefits thats the situation that needs to stop. when i got laid off i was living with ex- split at the time- and got told shed have to support me even tho we werent a couple. it was catch 22. couldnt move out cuz of no cash and couldnt get cash cuz no help. yet they could see id worked x amount of years etc but will give money to people for years on end | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"i would like to know what sacrifices the rich are having to make to balance the books.answers on a postage stamp "They got tax cuts, which are also cuts when you think about it.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"i would like to know what sacrifices the rich are having to make to balance the books.answers on a postage stamp
Why dont you look up HMRC tax rates and find out for yourself? As has been demonstrated and proven time and time again, the wealthy in this country pay more than their fair share of tax and are probably the most unlikely to call on it as most will send their kids to private school and most will have PHI."Simply stating 'as has been demonstrated and proven time and again' doesn't make it so. The rich probably pay more actual tax than the poor but pay proportionately less. As for private schools and healthcare, why do these need charitable status and why do those with PHI still rely on NHS accident and emergency services, blood transfusion and so on. Opt out by all means but opt out 100%. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a good timing that we will move to spain next year lol before this country is going down hilllllllll." Compared to Spain? D'ye really think so? BTW, if Cameron's referendum goes towards leaving the EU, Brits will have no right of residence in EU countries except by nature of their nationality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a good timing that we will move to spain next year lol before this country is going down hilllllllll. Compared to Spain? D'ye really think so? BTW, if Cameron's referendum goes towards leaving the EU, Brits will have no right of residence in EU countries except by nature of their nationality." Yes my parents are gonna retire there so I will join them, that's handy as I am not british, I am a Swedish guy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We spent about 700 billion on benefits last year, and nearly 240 billion was spent on pensions, if we are looking to make a 12billion saving why not simply do a 5% cut on pensions, works out an average of £3.50 a week, doesn't seem like a massive issue to me? " So after paying into a system for 50yrs, after building our economy with their physical labour (as it was a different workforce 50 yrs ago), you want to put a group of people at risk that are in retirement i.e. more than likely susceptible to ill health, dont have much of an income, and don't know their way around an already confusing benefits system. You want to push the the cuts away from yourself onto another group of people who are wholly unable to affect their income by getting a job! These people have been conscientious with their money and put into a pension, a pension that thanks to G. Brown removing tax relief are worth a whole lot less than they should anyway? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"i would like to know what sacrifices the rich are having to make to balance the books.answers on a postage stamp
Why dont you look up HMRC tax rates and find out for yourself? As has been demonstrated and proven time and time again, the wealthy in this country pay more than their fair share of tax and are probably the most unlikely to call on it as most will send their kids to private school and most will have PHI."up to a point... they have a point.. plus they are then spending more which is getting back more VAT I suppose.... i still the headline highest rate tax band being cut from 50 to 45% gives people too much ammo... I would like to see it go back.... if we are all "in it together" you could have made it a temporary measure to go up and say it will come back down when it is all sorted.... I would still like to seeing the welfare cap come down from 26,000..... I do see why a family on benefits should "potentially" get the same amount as the national average (plus remember working people are being taxed on that 26K)..... I would like the cap to come down to 23K (which is what actually david milliband suggested) or even 20K | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a good timing that we will move to spain next year lol before this country is going down hilllllllll. Compared to Spain? D'ye really think so? BTW, if Cameron's referendum goes towards leaving the EU, Brits will have no right of residence in EU countries except by nature of their nationality.Yes my parents are gonna retire there so I will join them, that's handy as I am not british, I am a Swedish guy." We will get a place in Alicante near the famous juan beach. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"i would like to know what sacrifices the rich are having to make to balance the books.answers on a postage stamp
Why dont you look up HMRC tax rates and find out for yourself? As has been demonstrated and proven time and time again, the wealthy in this country pay more than their fair share of tax and are probably the most unlikely to call on it as most will send their kids to private school and most will have PHI.
up to a point... they have a point.. plus they are then spending more which is getting back more VAT I suppose....
i still the headline highest rate tax band being cut from 50 to 45% gives people too much ammo... I would like to see it go back.... if we are all "in it together" you could have made it a temporary measure to go up and say it will come back down when it is all sorted....
I would still like to seeing the welfare cap come down from 26,000..... I do see why a family on benefits should "potentially" get the same amount as the national average (plus remember working people are being taxed on that 26K).....
I would like the cap to come down to 23K (which is what actually david milliband suggested) or even 20K
" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Government need to save 12 billion off the welfare budget. They are proposing cutting housing benefit to young job seekers aged 18-21. The rumours are rife that this may increase to under 25's for job seekers. Plus tax credits may be included too. On the other hand - they have already reduced the qualifying period for Right to Acquire for Social Housing - from 5 to 3 years. Again - rumours are that the discounts given will drastically increase from £10,000 currently for RTA to a lot more - perhaps in line with Right to Buy - 35% after 5 years of a tenancy. So they take with one hand and give with the other? Seems slightly crazy to me - one group of people lose and another gains ? How does the tax payer benefit overall? Necessary " It's about time benefits are to get by, and I know people that are on benefits and, they have more disposable income than me. To me that's not right when I work in excess of forty hours a week and earn about 35 thousand per year | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thought this was a sex site , not politics " did you miss this bit when making your contribution.... The Lounge: The lounge is for general chat and discussion | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"While I agree that welfare needs looking at, it always seems to be the easy option, rather than pulling their fingers out and looking at themselves and doing more about where we do spend money needlessly. They can claw back the money needed by a)not accepting the proposed 10 to 11% pay rise for MPs. b)move out of the palace of Westminster while it is being renovated instead of staying there and costing the taxpayer 2 to 3 billion more. c) stop spending millions on funding fledgling overseas police forces, while telling UK police forces that they need to make cuts and that the NHS needs to cut back also. d) only pay MPs the actual amount on expenses that they spend, rather than a standard amount for everyone. e)stop paying MPs for a second home. Anyone else has to fund a second premises from their own wages if they choose to work in a different area to where they live, so why should MPs get special treatment. f)go after those that avoid and evade tax instead of hitting on the poor again and again. The list is by no means exhaustive ! " I agree could go on about the armed forces, bank nurses from abroad and paramedics getting double the pay our nurses and paramedics get paid ECA and EMTs too. The new car tax must be making a bundle and the roads are still shit. And Referance this is a sex site not a political site this gets me very wound up and the best way to relieve stress is a have a good shag!! Lol x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We spent about 700 billion on benefits last year, and nearly 240 billion was spent on pensions, if we are looking to make a 12billion saving why not simply do a 5% cut on pensions, works out an average of £3.50 a week, doesn't seem like a massive issue to me? " On the other hand they could cut ALL benefits by 1.7% which would have the same saving.... even less of an issue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"While I agree that welfare needs looking at, it always seems to be the easy option, rather than pulling their fingers out and looking at themselves and doing more about where we do spend money needlessly. They can claw back the money needed by a)not accepting the proposed 10 to 11% pay rise for MPs. b)move out of the palace of Westminster while it is being renovated instead of staying there and costing the taxpayer 2 to 3 billion more. c) stop spending millions on funding fledgling overseas police forces, while telling UK police forces that they need to make cuts and that the NHS needs to cut back also. d) only pay MPs the actual amount on expenses that they spend, rather than a standard amount for everyone. e)stop paying MPs for a second home. Anyone else has to fund a second premises from their own wages if they choose to work in a different area to where they live, so why should MPs get special treatment. f)go after those that avoid and evade tax instead of hitting on the poor again and again. The list is by no means exhaustive ! " i agree with a lot of those... especially b actually about moving out...epecially in these times.. two things i did what to say.. just a correction on the fact that nhs spending is going up.... and i disagrees with e) up to a point.... if you think it is far for lets say someone representing st ives or the western isles, or the scottish borders... or holyhead to not have a 2nd residence near to london and be recompensed for that i think is a none starter... i would have it that if you represent a constituency within lets say 1 hr away from london (50 mile radius lets say) you dont get a 2nd home paid for you... you can travel in like everyone else (i'll be generous and say you can have those travel expenses covered) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thought this was a sex site , not politics did you miss this bit when making your contribution.... The Lounge: The lounge is for general chat and discussion" Some people just can't grasp the concept of everything not revolving around sex and having the ability to have conversations. Then wonder why nobody will talk to them  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why dont you look up HMRC tax rates and find out for yourself? As has been demonstrated and proven time and time again, the wealthy in this country pay more than their fair share of tax and are probably the most unlikely to call on it as most will send their kids to private school and most will have PHI. Totally agree! Why should people who have worked hard to get where they are, and earning a higher wage, be penalised for doing so by having to pay a higher rate of tax! Especially when there are millions in this country who are quite happy to sit at home claiming benefits. " There aren't millions of people like this. The majority of people on benefits aren't scroungers. Sure, there are some bad apples but you are just buying the Daily Mail, right wing propaganda that poor people deserve to be poor. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apart from vehicle running costs but public transport passes registered to the user seems a viable option. " Depends on your sector. Mine was logistics. Application forms asked 'do you have a car and a valid driving license'. Say no, and you won't get the job. Too many sales calls and warehouse visits to be made. I also lived in the countryside where I simply couldn't get to jobs on public transport when I was younger. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We spent about 700 billion on benefits last year, and nearly 240 billion was spent on pensions, if we are looking to make a 12billion saving why not simply do a 5% cut on pensions, works out an average of £3.50 a week, doesn't seem like a massive issue to me? On the other hand they could cut ALL benefits by 1.7% which would have the same saving.... even less of an issue." the problem is the most benefits are only going up by 1%...... whereas the state pension is going up by a minimum of 2.5% (under the triple lock) pensions go out to vote... which is why ALL parties pander to them (no party would ever suggest messing with it... political suicide!) thats why i say that if young people ever voted in elections as much as old people... they would bend over backwards!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why dont you look up HMRC tax rates and find out for yourself? As has been demonstrated and proven time and time again, the wealthy in this country pay more than their fair share of tax and are probably the most unlikely to call on it as most will send their kids to private school and most will have PHI. Totally agree! Why should people who have worked hard to get where they are, and earning a higher wage, be penalised for doing so by having to pay a higher rate of tax! Especially when there are millions in this country who are quite happy to sit at home claiming benefits. There aren't millions of people like this. The majority of people on benefits aren't scroungers. Sure, there are some bad apples but you are just buying the Daily Mail, right wing propaganda that poor people deserve to be poor." Coming from a low class background I have to disagree I know lots of "career dollies" who have never worked a day in their life but cry about it on their brand new sofa while drinking wine and using Facebook on their brand new laptop while the many kids play xbox one on the 50" tv they got last year sitting on the new carpet. All while saying they don't receive too much money | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why dont you look up HMRC tax rates and find out for yourself? As has been demonstrated and proven time and time again, the wealthy in this country pay more than their fair share of tax and are probably the most unlikely to call on it as most will send their kids to private school and most will have PHI. Totally agree! Why should people who have worked hard to get where they are, and earning a higher wage, be penalised for doing so by having to pay a higher rate of tax! Especially when there are millions in this country who are quite happy to sit at home claiming benefits. There aren't millions of people like this. The majority of people on benefits aren't scroungers. Sure, there are some bad apples but you are just buying the Daily Mail, right wing propaganda that poor people deserve to be poor. Coming from a low class background I have to disagree I know lots of "career dollies" who have never worked a day in their life but cry about it on their brand new sofa while drinking wine and using Facebook on their brand new laptop while the many kids play xbox one on the 50" tv they got last year sitting on the new carpet. All while saying they don't receive too much money "Part of my day job and I see it frequently it's not exaggerated at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people just worked instead of sitting on there arses watching TV all day might help, I understand we have people that can not work but we have a lot that are just bone. For the comment around pensions most of these people have worked hard all there life with no hand outs why should they do with out. To solve a problem like this it's easy. All mobility car should only be cars that are made in the UK creating jobs and taxes that can be paid back to the government. There is loads of money wasted in this county giving aid to counties that done even want our money. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's the working families that get penalised in this country,we pay for everything and the one benefit we do get gets cut,ie tax credits,I've not had a pay rise in 4 yrs and when I did get one it was 1%" This is the next benefit to be cut, working tax credits. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's the working families that get penalised in this country,we pay for everything and the one benefit we do get gets cut,ie tax credits,I've not had a pay rise in 4 yrs and when I did get one it was 1% This is the next benefit to be cut, working tax credits." I'm going for single occupancy council tax. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm going for single occupancy council tax." They've already changed some rules around council tax , empty properties no longer stay exempt until occupied. Be interesting to see if they do this. I remember the whole poll tax farce! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's the working families that get penalised in this country,we pay for everything and the one benefit we do get gets cut,ie tax credits,I've not had a pay rise in 4 yrs and when I did get one it was 1% This is the next benefit to be cut, working tax credits. I'm going for single occupancy council tax." Check it all out. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/993bbe76-182e-11e5-a130-2e7db721f996.html#axzz3dnobna1j | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"It's the working families that get penalised in this country,we pay for everything and the one benefit we do get gets cut,ie tax credits,I've not had a pay rise in 4 yrs and when I did get one it was 1% This is the next benefit to be cut, working tax credits. I'm going for single occupancy council tax. Check it all out. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/993bbe76-182e-11e5-a130-2e7db721f996.html#axzz3dnobna1j" paywall, cant see it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm going for single occupancy council tax. They've already changed some rules around council tax , empty properties no longer stay exempt until occupied. Be interesting to see if they do this. I remember the whole poll tax farce! " You get an exemption for about 3 months. My mother lived alone and got the 25% discount, when she died there was a 3 month exemption but after that full community charge was applied, until the house was sold, with a 50% increase if still empty after 2 years !! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Unfair. End of thread." Fair End of thread  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm currently a jobseeker and to be completely honest I think they should stop payments completely and instead use vouchers for gas/electric/water and sewerage. Shopping and clothing vouchers to be used at a supermarket of your choosing. Have government run launderettes in case washing machines pack in. Stopping smoking aids are already available for free. I really can't think of anything else a jobseeker NEEDS. Apart from vehicle running costs but public transport passes registered to the user seems a viable option. " the only thing with what youve said that i wouldnt agree with (im not on jsa by the way) is its much cheaper to buy clothes and food like meat n fruit and veg in the market, or by shopping around all over, cheap food shops, pound shops, charity shops ect would the vouchers be usable in those places? Not everybodys shops in the same places and also dont you think it would create even more discrimination when people go into a supermarket and hand over a voucher, the looks they would get and comments from people because there is this dumbfounded idea that all people on benefits are drug taking alchoholic scroungers with no life ambition? Peach | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's the working families that get penalised in this country,we pay for everything and the one benefit we do get gets cut,ie tax credits,I've not had a pay rise in 4 yrs and when I did get one it was 1% This is the next benefit to be cut, working tax credits. I'm going for single occupancy council tax. Check it all out. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/993bbe76-182e-11e5-a130-2e7db721f996.html#axzz3dnobna1j paywall, cant see it." Ooh sorry, that was the best report as well. It actually wnet on about the cuts and had figures and everything. Suppose one of the biased newspapers will have to do then, that goes on about people and opinions on them and all that shit instead of the proper story. http://news.sky.com/story/1506165/pm-tax-credits-merry-go-round-must-end | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's the working families that get penalised in this country,we pay for everything and the one benefit we do get gets cut,ie tax credits,I've not had a pay rise in 4 yrs and when I did get one it was 1% This is the next benefit to be cut, working tax credits." That's certainly the implication of what IDS has just been saying, or rather not saying, in the Commons over the last few minutes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why should the rich get penalised I work fecking hard and long to have a better life. I pay extra tax so that lazy people stay on welfare. I do agree with helping young mums, redundancy, people who do deserve help. There is work out there if you want it! I spend 40 hours a week traveling to jobs. I think pensioners deserve there money!! Taking more money of them even £3.50 is bad. I employed an ex con helped him get back on his feet and paid him a good wage for over a year. Last week he did something to get sacked I was very shocked and asked him why? His response was I need to get sacked I was better off on the dole they paid for his rent and gave him money every two weeks. Wtf Please note he still works for me and I have given him a wage rise. He is a damn good worker. " Please circulate this to cameron, ids, osborne, tesco et al. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's the working families that get penalised in this country,we pay for everything and the one benefit we do get gets cut,ie tax credits,I've not had a pay rise in 4 yrs and when I did get one it was 1% This is the next benefit to be cut, working tax credits. That's certainly the implication of what IDS has just been saying, or rather not saying, in the Commons over the last few minutes." The same man that lives in a house owned by his multi millionaire father in law, puts his £30 breakfast on expenses, then says he could live off benefits. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To summarise:- The vast majority of state benefits go to: * pensions * people already in work but struggling" You saved me from writing that that. The pensioners are protected as the government will not annoy that set of voters. The objection I have is the that incentives to buy are significant but if a smaller amount is given in housing benefit it's seen as being given to scroungers. It's all public money. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people just worked instead of sitting on there arses watching TV all day might help, I understand we have people that can not work but we have a lot that are just bone. For the comment around pensions most of these people have worked hard all there life with no hand outs why should they do with out. To solve a problem like this it's easy. All mobility car should only be cars that are made in the UK creating jobs and taxes that can be paid back to the government. There is loads of money wasted in this county giving aid to counties that done even want our money. " More women than men are pensioners, because women live longer than men. Some of those will not have worked outside of the home at all. I think raising a family is work but it's not paid and you don't contribute to the tax take doing it. The Baby Boomer pensioners were able to retire earlier and have had the best pensions available. Not something any of us in our 40s and 50s can hope to expect. They will remain untouched but the rest of us will have to carry the costs and long into the future. Unless my circumstances change drastically I can't see a point when I can retire as the pension I have been paying into for 26 years shows no sign of being enough to support me. Overseas aid is not just about aid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The objection I have is the that incentives to buy are significant but if a smaller amount is given in housing benefit it's seen as being given to scroungers. It's all public money. " It is ! And they will never catch up with rebuilding housing to replace what is sold off. Much of which will become private rental in the future - with rents potentially paid by housing benefit - which are set a lot higher than social housing. And this benefits the public purse, how? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For far too long this country has been bled dry by a minority who have basically taken the piss. Been lazy and played the system. At the expense of the tax payers. " Links? Evidence? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The objection I have is the that incentives to buy are significant but if a smaller amount is given in housing benefit it's seen as being given to scroungers. It's all public money. It is ! And they will never catch up with rebuilding housing to replace what is sold off. Much of which will become private rental in the future - with rents potentially paid by housing benefit - which are set a lot higher than social housing. And this benefits the public purse, how? " Not at all but benefits private individual greatly. That is the Tory dream ideal of the individual doing well. Of course the numbers of actual buildings remain the same but their use does not. It's not like for like. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For far too long this country has been bled dry by a minority who have basically taken the piss. Been lazy and played the system. At the expense of the tax payers. Links? Evidence? " The Royals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For far too long this country has been bled dry by a minority who have basically taken the piss. Been lazy and played the system. At the expense of the tax payers. Links? Evidence? " He's talking about the government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For far too long this country has been bled dry by a minority who have basically taken the piss. Been lazy and played the system. At the expense of the tax payers. Links? Evidence? " Eyes opened, of course I can't provide links that's ridiculous. But anyone who has or does work within the social care, housing sector has seen and heard countless times of said evidence. If you do require evidence. See. Our national debt, and why the government is making such radical cuts.there is your evidence right there. Now please re read my comments, I am not saying genuine case's should suffer only those who choose not to work just because they can. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Royals." That's telly, silly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Eyes opened, of course I can't provide links that's ridiculous. But anyone who has or does work within the social care, housing sector has seen and heard countless times of said evidence. If you do require evidence. See. Our national debt, and why the government is making such radical cuts.there is your evidence right there. Now please re read my comments, I am not saying genuine case's should suffer only those who choose not to work just because they can. " Yes, but that was your opening gambit. Evidence? Links? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 Of course its not just the thieving cons who re distribute your taxes to their wealthy friends. labour have pulled similar stunts like selling off our gold reserves when the gold price was rock bottom and public private initiatives.
I dont vote and never have because i am lazy or lethargic, I dont vote because i think they are all without exception a bunch of lying thieving manipulative scum bags. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The level of the debate is to pit the have 'nots-against' the 'have-nothings'. Psst! *Don't look at what's going on above*" It's worse than that: it is more and more coming to be couched in terms of the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. The deserving poor being pensioners (regardless of what they have actually contributed) and the undeserving are those feckless people who because of lower educational attainment, mental ill health, physical ill health, addictions etc. are draining our coffers. Go out to work on minimum wage and the government will subsidise the employer by topping you up. Of course you might still be seen as feckless and a drain on our coffers by those that think any form of benefit (except to the lovely pensioners) means you're a scrounger. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well george doesnt seem to be short of tax payer money he can dish out to his banking friends. The tax payer bailed out RBS to the tune of some 58 billion pounds, buying shares at around £5.70. Seems a tad expensive for a private business that has gone under. He is going through the motions of off loading those shares at the moment which are at about £2.70. Which will be a loss of around some 30 billion pounds to the tax payer. Of course its not just the thieving cons who re distribute your taxes to their wealthy friends. labour have pulled similar stunts like selling off our gold reserves when the gold price was rock bottom and public private initiatives.
I dont vote and never have because i am lazy or lethargic, I dont vote because i think they are all without exception a bunch of lying thieving manipulative scum bags. "Well said. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"well george doesnt seem to be short of tax payer money he can dish out to his banking friends. The tax payer bailed out RBS to the tune of some 58 billion pounds, buying shares at around £5.70. Seems a tad expensive for a private business that has gone under. He is going through the motions of off loading those shares at the moment which are at about £2.70. Which will be a loss of around some 30 billion pounds to the tax payer. Of course its not just the thieving cons who re distribute your taxes to their wealthy friends. labour have pulled similar stunts like selling off our gold reserves when the gold price was rock bottom and public private initiatives.
I dont vote and never have because i am lazy or lethargic, I dont vote because i think they are all without exception a bunch of lying thieving manipulative scum bags. "I think you'll find the g'ment has ploughed £660 billions - yes BILLION - in to the banking sector since 2008. That's where the national debt/quantitative easing (that's eroded the value of yr savings) comes from. Not benefits claimants | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So when I read about people getting annoyed about benefits claimants 'getting more money than I do and I work' (this is approx 95 families in the country but don't let the facts get in the way of a good headline, eh?) I'm afraid you'll have to think a bit harder and look beyond the headline. " I don't necessarily disagree with the thrust of your argument but that's an extremely misleading statistic to choose to use. If 95 is the number of families receiving benefits in excess of the cap, that is NOT same thing as only 95 families receiving benefits in excess of what someone who works may receive because obviously the cap is based on averages....(specifically the median net weekly income of a working household). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's worse than that: it is more and more coming to be couched in terms of the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. The deserving poor being pensioners (regardless of what they have actually contributed) and the undeserving are those feckless people who because of lower educational attainment, mental ill health, physical ill health, addictions etc. are draining our coffers. Go out to work on minimum wage and the government will subsidise the employer by topping you up. Of course you might still be seen as feckless and a drain on our coffers by those that think any form of benefit (except to the lovely pensioners) means you're a scrounger. " *coffs* Zero-hours contracts | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't necessarily disagree with the thrust of your argument but that's an extremely misleading statistic to choose to use. If 95 is the number of families receiving benefits in excess of the cap, that is NOT same thing as only 95 families receiving benefits in excess of what someone who works may receive because obviously the cap is based on averages....(specifically the median net weekly income of a working household)." But it's also misleading of the g'ment to claim it's 'cracking down on welfare abuses' by picking on 95 families - families with unique circumstances. It's breaking a butterfly on a wheel for the sake of a headline. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's going to get worse, before it gets better and maybe not in my lifetime. But maybe I am nieve, but at least the government do seem to be trying to sort the problem out.Even if it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. " And Paul is usually a jolly good chum of Osbournes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's going to get worse, before it gets better and maybe not in my lifetime. But maybe I am nieve, but at least the government do seem to be trying to sort the problem out.Even if it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. " There are lots of other things that could be done instead of squeezing the peasants. * HS2 anyone? * The pointlessness of Trident? * (whisper it) pensions reform? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't necessarily disagree with the thrust of your argument but that's an extremely misleading statistic to choose to use. If 95 is the number of families receiving benefits in excess of the cap, that is NOT same thing as only 95 families receiving benefits in excess of what someone who works may receive because obviously the cap is based on averages....(specifically the median net weekly income of a working household). But it's also misleading of the g'ment to claim it's 'cracking down on welfare abuses' by picking on 95 families - families with unique circumstances. It's breaking a butterfly on a wheel for the sake of a headline. " Of course it is. But you've done the exact same thing to support your argument. You're criticising the govenrment for using statistics in a misleading way by using statistics in a misleading way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course it is. But you've done the exact same thing to support your argument. You're criticising the govenrment for using statistics in a misleading way by using statistics in a misleading way. " How am I being misleading? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course it is. But you've done the exact same thing to support your argument. You're criticising the govenrment for using statistics in a misleading way by using statistics in a misleading way. How am I being misleading?" By stating that there are only 95 cases of families "earning more than I do and I work hard" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it,every time the topic of benefits cuts come up.Top of the list is the pension an pensioner cost.Yes we have paid in, so why cant we get some of it back." Even if you don't need it? Even if your pension is £40k a year and you have no mortgage? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By stating that there are only 95 cases of families "earning more than I do and I work hard" " But that is the line repeated in certain quarters of the press, that it is 'unfair that benefits claimants receive more than the national average wage'. And I'm saying that the total number of families who fall in to this category is minute. What's misleading? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it,every time the topic of benefits cuts come up.Top of the list is the pension an pensioner cost.Yes we have paid in, so why cant we get some of it back." Of course pensioners can - but when many groups across UK society have seen stagnations or falls in their incomes over the last 7 years, why is that pensioners continue to get an inflation-busting 2.5% extra each year? Where is that pain spread? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"More to do with removing the welfare trap that means being out of work is a serious lifestyle option. People trapped in a welfare system that reduces their incentive to work is what this government is trying to fix. Allowing school leavers to go from school to welfare is madness as was the idea that a single 16 year old girl can get pregnant and qualify for housing. Starting out in life after school on welfare is only going to end up with welfare dependancy and that would be no good for anyone. Some situations are complicated but the this is about right. A welfare existence is a lifestyle choice for many. Problem is you have generations growing up with no appropriate male role models in their life - as in one that goes out to work, at all. However, some people on the 'estate' make a decent extra wedge selling drugs and doing the odd burglary here and there. These are the role models for the disaffected. " Bull. I'm 1 of 6 raised since the youngest was 2, by a single mother. All of us have a decent education, and work, not having a male role model hasn't affected us, mum taught us morals and ethics by herself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it,every time the topic of benefits cuts come up.Top of the list is the pension an pensioner cost.Yes we have paid in, so why cant we get some of it back." Nobody paid in £130 a week though, or £200 if a couple. Cut them i say!!! JK. I'll be ok when i'm old coz i'm saving all my child benefits and had 17 kids and gonna sell off my 15 bedroom council house. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pensions and more specifically pension age benefits DO need looking at as part of this. There are now more working age people living in poverty than pensioners living in poverty. I know plenty of pensioners whose pension is far in excess of my salary who still receive state pension, winter fuel allowance, free travel etc. despite the fact they don't need it. We've got to a point where I think we need to think on the basis of NEED rather than "I've paid in all my life so I DESERVE" it. It's not just about shivering little old ladies who can't heat and eat who of course need protection, they need more than they currently receive - but when you talk pensions you're also talking about people who retired at 55 and are mortgage free who go on 4 cruises a year. They don't need a free bus pass which costs the taxpayer hundreds of millions per year. They don't need their state pension which makes up a small proportion of their income to be increase by 2.5%."
The untouchables.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"By stating that there are only 95 cases of families "earning more than I do and I work hard" But that is the line repeated in certain quarters of the press, that it is 'unfair that benefits claimants receive more than the national average wage'. And I'm saying that the total number of families who fall in to this category is minute. What's misleading?" The original comment of yours which I quoted was misleading because you were implying (or at least I inferred) that anyone who complains about people receiving more in benefits than they earn by working can't make that argument because there are only 95 families in excess of the cap. But the cap is an average which includes high as well as low earners. That family working and complaining could be bringing in £20k and there could be hundreds receiving more in benefits. Or £15k and it could be thousands. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The original comment of yours which I quoted was misleading because you were implying (or at least I inferred) that anyone who complains about people receiving more in benefits than they earn by working can't make that argument because there are only 95 families in excess of the cap. But the cap is an average which includes high as well as low earners. That family working and complaining could be bringing in £20k and there could be hundreds receiving more in benefits. Or £15k and it could be thousands. " Agreed. And yes, I think perhaps you misunderstood my comment (which was the third and supposedly final in a line, if you re-read). No worries. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet we all still have to pay & support the BBC" Please read the thread, and in particular my comments, which give some interesting facts as well as opinions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it,every time the topic of benefits cuts come up.Top of the list is the pension an pensioner cost.Yes we have paid in, so why cant we get some of it back." We pay in for need, not as a savings scheme. I've been paying in for 34 years (longer than some pensioners now claiming their pensions). If I decided to stop or found myself unable to work now I wouldn't be entitled to claim anything because I am self-employed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yet we all still have to pay & support the BBC" no you don't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The original comment of yours which I quoted was misleading because you were implying (or at least I inferred) that anyone who complains about people receiving more in benefits than they earn by working can't make that argument because there are only 95 families in excess of the cap. But the cap is an average which includes high as well as low earners. That family working and complaining could be bringing in £20k and there could be hundreds receiving more in benefits. Or £15k and it could be thousands. Agreed. And yes, I think perhaps you misunderstood my comment (which was the third and supposedly final in a line, if you re-read). No worries. "I didn't misunderstand it. As I said, I don't disagree with the main point of your argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pensions and more specifically pension age benefits DO need looking at as part of this. There are now more working age people living in poverty than pensioners living in poverty. I know plenty of pensioners whose pension is far in excess of my salary who still receive state pension, winter fuel allowance, free travel etc. despite the fact they don't need it. We've got to a point where I think we need to think on the basis of NEED rather than "I've paid in all my life so I DESERVE" it. It's not just about shivering little old ladies who can't heat and eat who of course need protection, they need more than they currently receive - but when you talk pensions you're also talking about people who retired at 55 and are mortgage free who go on 4 cruises a year. They don't need a free bus pass which costs the taxpayer hundreds of millions per year. They don't need their state pension which makes up a small proportion of their income to be increase by 2.5%.
The untouchables.
"Haven't those pensioners wasn't their state pension via contributions though? And does it cost money if they don't collect or use a free bus pass? I'd be pretty pissed off if, because I've contributed to a private pension all my working life it was deemed 'unfair' for me to receive the state pension I'd also contributed towards. I agree however that the winter fuel allowance should be means tested. The percentage of retired folk taking four cruises a year will, I suspect, be as small as the percentage of fraudulent benefit claimants. Tiny. A | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pensions and more specifically pension age benefits DO need looking at as part of this. There are now more working age people living in poverty than pensioners living in poverty. I know plenty of pensioners whose pension is far in excess of my salary who still receive state pension, winter fuel allowance, free travel etc. despite the fact they don't need it. We've got to a point where I think we need to think on the basis of NEED rather than "I've paid in all my life so I DESERVE" it. It's not just about shivering little old ladies who can't heat and eat who of course need protection, they need more than they currently receive - but when you talk pensions you're also talking about people who retired at 55 and are mortgage free who go on 4 cruises a year. They don't need a free bus pass which costs the taxpayer hundreds of millions per year. They don't need their state pension which makes up a small proportion of their income to be increase by 2.5%.
The untouchables.
"Because they wield more influence than the young and disaffected. I don't believe it's a party political thing either, no party pre election had the balls to even mention the elephant in the room which is the spiralling cost of an ageing population. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I didn't misunderstand it. As I said, I don't disagree with the main point of your argument. " An outbreak of agreement? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We spent about 700 billion on benefits last year, and nearly 240 billion was spent on pensions, if we are looking to make a 12billion saving why not simply do a 5% cut on pensions, works out an average of £3.50 a week, doesn't seem like a massive issue to me? " The tories have been reluctant to make changes like this to pensioners, because they're consistently key Conservative voters. They've done relatively nicely over the last 5 years of government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why is it,every time the topic of benefits cuts come up.Top of the list is the pension an pensioner cost.Yes we have paid in, so why cant we get some of it back. We pay in for need, not as a savings scheme. I've been paying in for 34 years (longer than some pensioners now claiming their pensions). If I decided to stop or found myself unable to work now I wouldn't be entitled to claim anything because I am self-employed." For this very reason I much prefer to contribute to my own self administered savings scheme | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pensions and more specifically pension age benefits DO need looking at as part of this. There are now more working age people living in poverty than pensioners living in poverty. I know plenty of pensioners whose pension is far in excess of my salary who still receive state pension, winter fuel allowance, free travel etc. despite the fact they don't need it. We've got to a point where I think we need to think on the basis of NEED rather than "I've paid in all my life so I DESERVE" it. It's not just about shivering little old ladies who can't heat and eat who of course need protection, they need more than they currently receive - but when you talk pensions you're also talking about people who retired at 55 and are mortgage free who go on 4 cruises a year. They don't need a free bus pass which costs the taxpayer hundreds of millions per year. They don't need their state pension which makes up a small proportion of their income to be increase by 2.5%.
The untouchables.
Haven't those pensioners wasn't their state pension via contributions though?
And does it cost money if they don't collect or use a free bus pass?
I'd be pretty pissed off if, because I've contributed to a private pension all my working life it was deemed 'unfair' for me to receive the state pension I'd also contributed towards.
I agree however that the winter fuel allowance should be means tested.
The percentage of retired folk taking four cruises a year will, I suspect, be as small as the percentage of fraudulent benefit claimants.
Tiny.
A "
I agree with this. A means test for some of those retirement benefits seems sensible. Most retired people don't live a lavish life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We spent about 700 billion on benefits last year, and nearly 240 billion was spent on pensions, if we are looking to make a 12billion saving why not simply do a 5% cut on pensions, works out an average of £3.50 a week, doesn't seem like a massive issue to me? The tories have been reluctant to make changes like this to pensioners, because they're consistently key Conservative voters. They've done relatively nicely over the last 5 years of government." I think the pemise is confused. TOATAL G'ment spending last year was £746bn * Of which pensions accounts for 21% (£154bn) * Welfare is 15% (£111bn) http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"i would like to know what sacrifices the rich are having to make to balance the books.answers on a postage stamp
Why dont you look up HMRC tax rates and find out for yourself? As has been demonstrated and proven time and time again, the wealthy in this country pay more than their fair share of tax and are probably the most unlikely to call on it as most will send their kids to private school and most will have PHI."The richest group in our society have been very fortunate in recent years, as headlines such as this, from the Independent details 'Britain's divided decade: the rich are 64% richer than before the recession, while the poor are 57% poorer If you're already wealthy, then you have a very large safety net, to help out should unexpected things happen. The poor are not in such a position, so if the car has major problems, your home faces major repairs etc, then you have little or nothing to dip into. Such circumstances are one major reason why we need to treat the poorer with compassion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pensions and more specifically pension age benefits DO need looking at as part of this. There are now more working age people living in poverty than pensioners living in poverty. I know plenty of pensioners whose pension is far in excess of my salary who still receive state pension, winter fuel allowance, free travel etc. despite the fact they don't need it. We've got to a point where I think we need to think on the basis of NEED rather than "I've paid in all my life so I DESERVE" it. It's not just about shivering little old ladies who can't heat and eat who of course need protection, they need more than they currently receive - but when you talk pensions you're also talking about people who retired at 55 and are mortgage free who go on 4 cruises a year. They don't need a free bus pass which costs the taxpayer hundreds of millions per year. They don't need their state pension which makes up a small proportion of their income to be increase by 2.5%.
The untouchables.
Haven't those pensioners wasn't their state pension via contributions though?
And does it cost money if they don't collect or use a free bus pass?
I'd be pretty pissed off if, because I've contributed to a private pension all my working life it was deemed 'unfair' for me to receive the state pension I'd also contributed towards.
I agree however that the winter fuel allowance should be means tested.
The percentage of retired folk taking four cruises a year will, I suspect, be as small as the percentage of fraudulent benefit claimants.
Tiny.
A "I've contributed to a private pension and state pension for the entire of my working life. Do you think it's even still going to exist when I'm at retirement age? The costs of concessionary travel are based on usage, yes. So people who don't use it don't create any cost. Some people use it heavily and the bus operators have to be reimbursed for a full adult fare by your local council for each trip. Yes, the four cruises a year example is an extreme one. I don't think any of this negates the need to make pensioner benefits and pensions much more about need than want, or find some way of properly reforming the system before the costs of it overwhelm everything else. The system was set up at a time when life expectancies were so much shorter it's like a different world. The ratio of taxpayers to pensioners is already below what it needs to be to keep things going, and the situation is only going to be exacerbated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of confusion and inaccuracy in this thread :/" Links? Evidence?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I didn't misunderstand it. As I said, I don't disagree with the main point of your argument. An outbreak of agreement?" I agree with some things occasionally. It doesn't happen often though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I agree with some things occasionally. It doesn't happen often though "There's always a first time for everything  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pensions and more specifically pension age benefits DO need looking at as part of this. There are now more working age people living in poverty than pensioners living in poverty. I know plenty of pensioners whose pension is far in excess of my salary who still receive state pension, winter fuel allowance, free travel etc. despite the fact they don't need it. We've got to a point where I think we need to think on the basis of NEED rather than "I've paid in all my life so I DESERVE" it. It's not just about shivering little old ladies who can't heat and eat who of course need protection, they need more than they currently receive - but when you talk pensions you're also talking about people who retired at 55 and are mortgage free who go on 4 cruises a year. They don't need a free bus pass which costs the taxpayer hundreds of millions per year. They don't need their state pension which makes up a small proportion of their income to be increase by 2.5%.
The untouchables.
Haven't those pensioners wasn't their state pension via contributions though?
And does it cost money if they don't collect or use a free bus pass?
I'd be pretty pissed off if, because I've contributed to a private pension all my working life it was deemed 'unfair' for me to receive the state pension I'd also contributed towards.
I agree however that the winter fuel allowance should be means tested.
The percentage of retired folk taking four cruises a year will, I suspect, be as small as the percentage of fraudulent benefit claimants.
Tiny.
A
I've contributed to a private pension and state pension for the entire of my working life. Do you think it's even still going to exist when I'm at retirement age?
The costs of concessionary travel are based on usage, yes. So people who don't use it don't create any cost. Some people use it heavily and the bus operators have to be reimbursed for a full adult fare by your local council for each trip.
Yes, the four cruises a year example is an extreme one. I don't think any of this negates the need to make pensioner benefits and pensions much more about need than want, or find some way of properly reforming the system before the costs of it overwhelm everything else. The system was set up at a time when life expectancies were so much shorter it's like a different world. The ratio of taxpayers to pensioners is already below what it needs to be to keep things going, and the situation is only going to be exacerbated.
"I don't disagree at all. I simply disagree that pensioner A isn't as entitled to a state pension as pensioner B just because they've also contributed to their own private pension. If a system was based on such a premise you'd simply end up with the same situation as the present work vs benefits argument - i.e there's no point in me doing it as I'm no better off financially. A | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We spent about 700 billion on benefits last year, and nearly 240 billion was spent on pensions, if we are looking to make a 12billion saving why not simply do a 5% cut on pensions, works out an average of £3.50 a week, doesn't seem like a massive issue to me? " Exactly. I was going to say the same. I think it's about 50% of the welfare bill relates to pensions and other pension benefits, yet successive govts refuse to means test this. IMO because more older people tend to vote so they can't be upset. This means that the people that need the money the most are most affected by cuts. Remember, you can cut benefits but can't magic jobs out of thin air all over the UK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We spent about 700 billion on benefits last year, and nearly 240 billion was spent on pensions, if we are looking to make a 12billion saving why not simply do a 5% cut on pensions, works out an average of £3.50 a week, doesn't seem like a massive issue to me? Exactly. I was going to say the same. I think it's about 50% of the welfare bill relates to pensions and other pension benefits, yet successive govts refuse to means test this. IMO because more older people tend to vote so they can't be upset. This means that the people that need the money the most are most affected by cuts. Remember, you can cut benefits but can't magic jobs out of thin air all over the UK." These figs are incorrect:- TOTAL G'ment spending last year was £746bn * Of which pensions accounts for 21% (£154bn) * Welfare is 15% (£111bn) http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We spent about 700 billion on benefits last year, and nearly 240 billion was spent on pensions, if we are looking to make a 12billion saving why not simply do a 5% cut on pensions, works out an average of £3.50 a week, doesn't seem like a massive issue to me? Exactly. I was going to say the same. I think it's about 50% of the welfare bill relates to pensions and other pension benefits, yet successive govts refuse to means test this. IMO because more older people tend to vote so they can't be upset. This means that the people that need the money the most are most affected by cuts. Remember, you can cut benefits but can't magic jobs out of thin air all over the UK. These figs are incorrect:- TOTAL G'ment spending last year was £746bn * Of which pensions accounts for 21% (£154bn) * Welfare is 15% (£111bn) http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html" * Those figures | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Always an interesting debate. Does seem that our attitude to welfare has hardened, hence a Tory victory at the last election. Welfare for the most vulnerable in society is something we should cherish. Spending has however been allowed to get out of hand, as has the definition of vulnerable. It does appear that both issues are being tackled, and within a couple of decades we will have seen significant change. Some of it will be seen as fair, some of it won't, depending on where you are in your own lives." Mostly agree. The major difference is my analysis that our debt mountain is a consequence of the banking crash - not careless spending that got out of hand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Always an interesting debate. Does seem that our attitude to welfare has hardened, hence a Tory victory at the last election. Welfare for the most vulnerable in society is something we should cherish. Spending has however been allowed to get out of hand, as has the definition of vulnerable. It does appear that both issues are being tackled, and within a couple of decades we will have seen significant change. Some of it will be seen as fair, some of it won't, depending on where you are in your own lives. Mostly agree. The major difference is my analysis that our debt mountain is a consequence of the banking crash - not careless spending that got out of hand. " The primary cause of the size of the debt mountain is definitely a result of the financial crisis. But we were running a structural deficit throughtout much of the 10 year period leading up to the crash. So something was wrong with the spending situation. And the challenge with a structural deficit is that when there is are exogenous factors that create a crisis, the impact is greater as we have seen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Mostly agree. The major difference is my analysis that our debt mountain is a consequence of the banking crash - not careless spending that got out of hand. " ...and again, interest on out debts is the killer: * total UK public debt = £1.439 trillion * £59.6bn last year was spent on interest payments (out of that £746bn total g'ment spending) = approx 8% of total spending | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's the working families that get penalised in this country,we pay for everything and the one benefit we do get gets cut,ie tax credits,I've not had a pay rise in 4 yrs and when I did get one it was 1%" I've never understood why I should get working tax credits just because I have a job (or in my case, am self employed) that doesn't pay me as much as I'd like to get paid. They've now massively raised the personal tax threshold. Isn't that enough? Everyone should be contributing if they're earning over the tax threshold. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"More to do with removing the welfare trap that means being out of work is a serious lifestyle option. People trapped in a welfare system that reduces their incentive to work is what this government is trying to fix. Allowing school leavers to go from school to welfare is madness as was the idea that a single 16 year old girl can get pregnant and qualify for housing. Starting out in life after school on welfare is only going to end up with welfare dependancy and that would be no good for anyone." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The primary cause of the size of the debt mountain is definitely a result of the financial crisis. But we were running a structural deficit throughtout much of the 10 year period leading up to the crash. So something was wrong with the spending situation. And the challenge with a structural deficit is that when there is are exogenous factors that create a crisis, the impact is greater as we have seen." This country has rarely been out of debt in 300 years :P | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"i would like to know what sacrifices the rich are having to make to balance the books.answers on a postage stamp "What's your definition of "rich"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"More to do with removing the welfare trap that means being out of work is a serious lifestyle option. People trapped in a welfare system that reduces their incentive to work is what this government is trying to fix. Allowing school leavers to go from school to welfare is madness as was the idea that a single 16 year old girl can get pregnant and qualify for housing. Starting out in life after school on welfare is only going to end up with welfare dependancy and that would be no good for anyone. "I have to go have a life but this is really misleading - benefit for the vast, vast majority of poor, working people are not a 'lifestyle choice'. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Pensions and more specifically pension age benefits DO need looking at as part of this. There are now more working age people living in poverty than pensioners living in poverty. I know plenty of pensioners whose pension is far in excess of my salary who still receive state pension, winter fuel allowance, free travel etc. despite the fact they don't need it. We've got to a point where I think we need to think on the basis of NEED rather than "I've paid in all my life so I DESERVE" it. It's not just about shivering little old ladies who can't heat and eat who of course need protection, they need more than they currently receive - but when you talk pensions you're also talking about people who retired at 55 and are mortgage free who go on 4 cruises a year. They don't need a free bus pass which costs the taxpayer hundreds of millions per year. They don't need their state pension which makes up a small proportion of their income to be increase by 2.5%.
The untouchables.
Haven't those pensioners wasn't their state pension via contributions though?
And does it cost money if they don't collect or use a free bus pass?
I'd be pretty pissed off if, because I've contributed to a private pension all my working life it was deemed 'unfair' for me to receive the state pension I'd also contributed towards.
I agree however that the winter fuel allowance should be means tested.
The percentage of retired folk taking four cruises a year will, I suspect, be as small as the percentage of fraudulent benefit claimants.
Tiny.
A
I've contributed to a private pension and state pension for the entire of my working life. Do you think it's even still going to exist when I'm at retirement age?
The costs of concessionary travel are based on usage, yes. So people who don't use it don't create any cost. Some people use it heavily and the bus operators have to be reimbursed for a full adult fare by your local council for each trip.
Yes, the four cruises a year example is an extreme one. I don't think any of this negates the need to make pensioner benefits and pensions much more about need than want, or find some way of properly reforming the system before the costs of it overwhelm everything else. The system was set up at a time when life expectancies were so much shorter it's like a different world. The ratio of taxpayers to pensioners is already below what it needs to be to keep things going, and the situation is only going to be exacerbated.
I don't disagree at all.
I simply disagree that pensioner A isn't as entitled to a state pension as pensioner B just because they've also contributed to their own private pension.
If a system was based on such a premise you'd simply end up with the same situation as the present work vs benefits argument - i.e there's no point in me doing it as I'm no better off financially.
A"Yep, totally understand that. I don't think it would be pulling the rug from under too many people's feet to say that the triple lock idea was going to be abandoned for all except those pensioners who are wholly reliant on the state pension for their income, say those eligible for the additional state pension. It's not financially a big enough hit to negatively change private saving behaviours but I bet it would save a hell of a lot to the public purse (CBA to work it out, maybe tomorrow ) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's the working families that get penalised in this country,we pay for everything and the one benefit we do get gets cut,ie tax credits,I've not had a pay rise in 4 yrs and when I did get one it was 1% I've never understood why I should get working tax credits just because I have a job (or in my case, am self employed) that doesn't pay me as much as I'd like to get paid. They've now massively raised the personal tax threshold. Isn't that enough? Everyone should be contributing if they're earning over the tax threshold."
I know there was originally a point to the whole working tax credits thing but it seems meaningless to have to pay tax only to have it given back via some complicated (and costly) system if you don't earn "enough". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's the working families that get penalised in this country,we pay for everything and the one benefit we do get gets cut,ie tax credits,I've not had a pay rise in 4 yrs and when I did get one it was 1% I've never understood why I should get working tax credits just because I have a job (or in my case, am self employed) that doesn't pay me as much as I'd like to get paid. They've now massively raised the personal tax threshold. Isn't that enough? Everyone should be contributing if they're earning over the tax threshold.
I know there was originally a point to the whole working tax credits thing but it seems meaningless to have to pay tax only to have it given back via some complicated (and costly) system if you don't earn "enough". "Almost as bad as the married couples allowance. "You get everything proportionally cheaper because you're in a couple - so here's some extra help if one of you doesn't want to work full time". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know there was originally a point to the whole working tax credits thing but it seems meaningless to have to pay tax only to have it given back via some complicated (and costly) system if you don't earn "enough". " 'Ere we go again - The point of Tax Credits is they subsidise low wages paid by businesses to their employees | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know there was originally a point to the whole working tax credits thing but it seems meaningless to have to pay tax only to have it given back via some complicated (and costly) system if you don't earn "enough". 'Ere we go again - The point of Tax Credits is they subsidise low wages paid by businesses to their employees " But why administer it that way as opposed to raising the personal tax threshold further? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know there was originally a point to the whole working tax credits thing but it seems meaningless to have to pay tax only to have it given back via some complicated (and costly) system if you don't earn "enough". 'Ere we go again - The point of Tax Credits is they subsidise low wages paid by businesses to their employees But why administer it that way as opposed to raising the personal tax threshold further?" Agreed. But it was Gordon Broon's grand and overly-complicated attempt at wealth redistribution that is why Tax Credits were set up. We had them for a while - 'effing nightmare. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know there was originally a point to the whole working tax credits thing but it seems meaningless to have to pay tax only to have it given back via some complicated (and costly) system if you don't earn "enough". 'Ere we go again - The point of Tax Credits is they subsidise low wages paid by businesses to their employees But why administer it that way as opposed to raising the personal tax threshold further? Agreed. But it was Gordon Broon's grand and overly-complicated attempt at wealth redistribution that is why Tax Credits were set up. We had them for a while - 'effing nightmare. " Oh god, more agreement. It's spreading faster than ebola. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Unfair..however the despicable Osborne did say it would happen so any? Tory voters who think this is unfair,you only have yourselves to blame.. Little changes with conservatism practices...I am not a fan!" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"More to do with removing the welfare trap that means being out of work is a serious lifestyle option. People trapped in a welfare system that reduces their incentive to work is what this government is trying to fix. Allowing school leavers to go from school to welfare is madness as was the idea that a single 16 year old girl can get pregnant and qualify for housing. Starting out in life after school on welfare is only going to end up with welfare dependancy and that would be no good for anyone.
I have to go have a life but this is really misleading - benefit for the vast, vast majority of poor, working people are not a 'lifestyle choice'."Where does it say anything about the vast majority? I fully accept that if you have had a well paid job and your income is cut to benefit levels you will certainly notice it. I was referring to the bit about school leavers no longer being able to claim any kinds of benefits. Leaving school at 16/17 (as you could until last year) and being provided with an independent place to live and more money than Mum and Dad could dream of giving was a lifestyle choice for young single parents. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It strikes me as strange the number of people who fail to see that the Tories are NOT good for the country! Since it became obvious that the Soviet block had been economically beaten by The West there has been a massive redistribution of wealth from the majority to the super wealthy, and every time the Tories come up with another way of disenfranchising those at the bottom the vast majority cheer and fail to notice that they have just moved closer to being disenfranchised themselves! The right to buy is a perfect example of how we get conned and cheer the con-men on to more! In the 80's there was enough social housing to go round. As a result (except for student housing) private landlords were mainly restricted to the upper end of the market and the rents at bottom end were affordable. Also for those that wished to move on to the home owning ladder it was quite easy with starter homes costing less than double the national average wage in most places. We then got right to buy. Result, after 30 years the majority of social housing stock is gone, transferred to private landlords who now charge exorbitant rents to those who should be in social housing but cant be housed because the stock is gone! And the rest of us who would have been owner occupiers of homes by 25 are lucky if we can afford a deposit by the time we are 40 because the price of a starter home is now 4 5 or 6 times the average wage. Only greedy blinkered fools with short memories would fall for such an obvious con!" Maybe the shortage in social housing is also down to a growing population and a lack of investment in new social hosuing, not least by the last labour administration?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe the shortage in social housing is also down to a growing population and a lack of investment in new social hosuing, not least by the last labour administration??" Funny how Tory supporters are always able to blame others for Tory policies... It was Thatcher who sold off council housing and refused to allow the housing stock to be replaced. It is Callmewereallinittogether Dave and his sidekick Osborne who are now planning a sell off of housing trust property (the last significant social housing in this country). It was Thatcher who deregulated the London financial markets and it was Major who claimed that if Blair got into power in 96 he would re-regulate. Unfortunately Blair made a promise that he would leave the financial markets as they were and then kept his promise. As a result the vast majority of us have to endure cuts to pay for the misdeeds of those who are no longer regulated and tax cuts for the filthy rich and their corrupt greed driven obscene bonus culture! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe the shortage in social housing is also down to a growing population and a lack of investment in new social hosuing, not least by the last labour administration?? Funny how Tory supporters are always able to blame others for Tory policies... It was Thatcher who sold off council housing and refused to allow the housing stock to be replaced. It is Callmewereallinittogether Dave and his sidekick Osborne who are now planning a sell off of housing trust property (the last significant social housing in this country). It was Thatcher who deregulated the London financial markets and it was Major who claimed that if Blair got into power in 96 he would re-regulate. Unfortunately Blair made a promise that he would leave the financial markets as they were and then kept his promise. As a result the vast majority of us have to endure cuts to pay for the misdeeds of those who are no longer regulated and tax cuts for the filthy rich and their corrupt greed driven obscene bonus culture! " Have a look at the decline in social housing building stats under the last Labour government, significantly worse than under Thatcher. Fortunately the number is now increasing again. And many now argue that Thatcher didn't de-regulate the markets, but removed restrictive practices and was accompanied by a major expansion of regulation. It is also argued that the relaxation of regulation by Brown and Blair in 1997 set in train the conditions that led to the crash (the same Brown who sold our gold at an all time low). So it can be argued that Labour did as much, if not more to line the pockets of those in the city and create the environment that led to the various bail outs and also led to a severe housing shortage. Truth is both Tories and Labour have done some things well, and some things badly over the years and I'm sure everyone can find arguments to back up their own prejudice. A bit of balance in _iews is never a bad thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its a good timing that we will move to spain next year lol before this country is going down hilllllllll." Have you never checked out the amount of cuts there have been in Spain or the unemployment figures, especially for the under 25's? The collapse in the property market, in many places by as much as 50% and the number of bank reposessions? Any hardship here just doesn't compare | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Bottom line is benefit cuts for the majority to pay for tax cuts for the uber wealthy!" . I disagree... The uber wealthy don't pay tax so it's impossible to cut it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Bottom line is benefit cuts for the majority to pay for tax cuts for the uber wealthy!" Yep, that'll be it  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Bottom line is benefit cuts for the majority to pay for tax cuts for the uber wealthy! Yep, that'll be it "I didn't know there were that many 'uber wealthy' people out there. Obviously there are so many that by simply taxing them more the deficit problem will go away and there'll be benefits galore for all. Or not. A | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Bottom line is benefit cuts for the majority to pay for tax cuts for the uber wealthy! Yep, that'll be it
I didn't know there were that many 'uber wealthy' people out there. Obviously there are so many that by simply taxing them more the deficit problem will go away and there'll be benefits galore for all.
Or not.
A"Last time we were in this sort of a financial mess was in WW2. The then PM, one Mr Winston Churchill said "the rich must pay there share!" as he increased to top rate of income tax to 99.5% This time the Eaton Bullingdon Club boys answer has been to reduce the top rate of income tax (on earnings over £150,000) from 50% to 45%. I think Churchill would be crossing the floor of the house and leading a hue and cry if here were alive today! As it is I doubt that he is resting easy in his grave. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
