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 Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The magic money tree will start spouting green shoots as we head towards the General Election. Expect some modest(ish) tax giveaways this time and then a few more less modest ones in April. They’ll be talk of “headroom” too." Would increasing inheritance tax allowances be seen as modest when it'd only benefit the top 4%? If I recall correctly from LK  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The magic money tree will start spouting green shoots as we head towards the General Election. Expect some modest(ish) tax giveaways this time and then a few more less modest ones in April. They’ll be talk of “headroom” too. Would increasing inheritance tax allowances be seen as modest when it'd only benefit the top 4%? If I recall correctly from LK "it doesn't only benefit the top 4% , it also benefits the other 96% because they can play the lottery and one day they may win  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The magic money tree will start spouting green shoots as we head towards the General Election. Expect some modest(ish) tax giveaways this time and then a few more less modest ones in April. They’ll be talk of “headroom” too. Would increasing inheritance tax allowances be seen as modest when it'd only benefit the top 4%? If I recall correctly from LK "That’s precisely why it is modest. The opposite would be reducing the basic rate of income tax. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The big head turner will be inheritance tax. " That's not going to do much for most people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The magic money tree will start spouting green shoots as we head towards the General Election. Expect some modest(ish) tax giveaways this time and then a few more less modest ones in April. They’ll be talk of “headroom” too. Would increasing inheritance tax allowances be seen as modest when it'd only benefit the top 4%? If I recall correctly from LK
it doesn't only benefit the top 4% , it also benefits the other 96% because they can play the lottery and one day they may win "
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The big head turner will be inheritance tax. That's not going to do much for most people." It's not meant to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The big head turner will be inheritance tax. That's not going to do much for most people." Currently 4% of estates pay IH, but it's set to rise to 7% as boomers fall off their perches. That's not insignificant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reducing the ridiculously high tax burden should be in it." We don't have a ridiculously high tax burden. Taxes today are slightly lower than they were back in 2010, before the Tories took over. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reducing the ridiculously high tax burden should be in it. We don't have a ridiculously high tax burden. Taxes today are slightly lower than they were back in 2010, before the Tories took over." At over 33% it is high, and much of it is wasted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reducing the ridiculously high tax burden should be in it. We don't have a ridiculously high tax burden. Taxes today are slightly lower than they were back in 2010, before the Tories took over." I agree it's not ridiculous but curious what measurement you are using to say it's lower than 2010. (I'd also add tax is only half the equation and we need to factor in borrowing) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reducing the ridiculously high tax burden should be in it." "We don't have a ridiculously high tax burden. Taxes today are slightly lower than they were back in 2010, before the Tories took over." "At over 33% it is high, and much of it is wasted." I can sympathise with that view. But none of the existing parties is going to make any significant reduction in taxation, or in levels of government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reducing the ridiculously high tax burden should be in it. We don't have a ridiculously high tax burden. Taxes today are slightly lower than they were back in 2010, before the Tories took over. At over 33% it is high, and much of it is wasted. I can sympathise with that view. But none of the existing parties is going to make any significant reduction in taxation, or in levels of government." Unfortunately I think you are correct. There are all sorts of stealth taxes in this country. The ones in the news this week are standing charges for gas and electricity, these are a complete travesty and should be banned. The cost of running the network should be added to the unit price (which should be based on the average not the most expensive generation cost). All of us having to pay for poorly regulated companies that went bust is a scandal. In fact, better nationalise the industry and only have one supplier. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free fish and chips on a Tuesday for all." Woohoo | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free fish and chips on a Tuesday for all." I'd vote the country further into the ground for free fish n chips! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free fish and chips on a Tuesday for all. I'd vote the country further into the ground for free fish n chips!" With the price of fish n chips now, it would bankrupt the country very quickly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Free fish and chips on a Tuesday for all. Woohoo" AT LAST I knew Mogg would come true on his promise of cheaper food if we left The EU | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All those with wages rising faster than prices as per Sunak's statement please step forward " (Takes three steps back) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All those with wages rising faster than prices as per Sunak's statement please step forward (Takes three steps back)" I think that accounts for many of us. Especially public sector workers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All those with wages rising faster than prices as per Sunak's statement please step forward " What is the inflation rate for the past 12 months to compare it too. I've seen the high point and seen some lower figures from earlier in the year but not sure what it works out as overall | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reducing the ridiculously high tax burden should be in it. We don't have a ridiculously high tax burden. Taxes today are slightly lower than they were back in 2010, before the Tories took over. At over 33% it is high, and much of it is wasted." How much is wasted and how have you come to that figure being waste? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is the inflation rate for the past 12 months to compare it too. I've seen the high point and seen some lower figures from earlier in the year but not sure what it works out as overall" Inflation is currently at 4.7% according to the ONS (end of October figure). It's calculated by taking today's prices, and comparing them to a year ago, so the 4.7% figure covers the entire past year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is the inflation rate for the past 12 months to compare it too. I've seen the high point and seen some lower figures from earlier in the year but not sure what it works out as overall Inflation is currently at 4.7% according to the ONS (end of October figure). It's calculated by taking today's prices, and comparing them to a year ago, so the 4.7% figure covers the entire past year." Thank you. I was thinking it would be an average of this year's inflation figures but if we can use the latest monthly figure then I'm definitely ahead of prices | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read an article about the DWP checking benefit claimants bank accounts. Totally get why but will they have the ability to check accounts they haven't been informed about? Otherwise those claiming will just make other accounts,maybe under different names (like children). " does the goverment have the authoraty to check anyones bank account? im asking as i dont know | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read an article about the DWP checking benefit claimants bank accounts. Totally get why but will they have the ability to check accounts they haven't been informed about? Otherwise those claiming will just make other accounts,maybe under different names (like children). does the goverment have the authoraty to check anyones bank account? im asking as i dont know" Not without an application for a production order, an access order or a similar order through a court. However, a financial institution does have the obligation to report suspicious transactions or payments to law enforcement under various bits of money laundering legislation, which means that theoretically, anything is in the game. Smaller singular transactions are likely to be ignored as there really aren't enough investigation officers to look into these things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read an article about the DWP checking benefit claimants bank accounts. Totally get why but will they have the ability to check accounts they haven't been informed about? Otherwise those claiming will just make other accounts,maybe under different names (like children). does the goverment have the authoraty to check anyones bank account? im asking as i dont know Not without an application for a production order, an access order or a similar order through a court. However, a financial institution does have the obligation to report suspicious transactions or payments to law enforcement under various bits of money laundering legislation, which means that theoretically, anything is in the game. Smaller singular transactions are likely to be ignored as there really aren't enough investigation officers to look into these things." Thanks,i knew aboutreporting suspicious acctivity ,so why will they have the right to check benefit claimants and only them ?and if so then why is this being allowed ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read an article about the DWP checking benefit claimants bank accounts. Totally get why but will they have the ability to check accounts they haven't been informed about? Otherwise those claiming will just make other accounts,maybe under different names (like children). does the goverment have the authoraty to check anyones bank account? im asking as i dont know Not without an application for a production order, an access order or a similar order through a court. However, a financial institution does have the obligation to report suspicious transactions or payments to law enforcement under various bits of money laundering legislation, which means that theoretically, anything is in the game. Smaller singular transactions are likely to be ignored as there really aren't enough investigation officers to look into these things. Thanks,i knew aboutreporting suspicious acctivity ,so why will they have the right to check benefit claimants and only them ?and if so then why is this being allowed ?" We will find out today. The rationale is to check whether people are lying or not. For example, if a single person has £16,000+ in savings, they are not entitled to claim. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read an article about the DWP checking benefit claimants bank accounts. Totally get why but will they have the ability to check accounts they haven't been informed about? Otherwise those claiming will just make other accounts,maybe under different names (like children). does the goverment have the authoraty to check anyones bank account? im asking as i dont know Not without an application for a production order, an access order or a similar order through a court. However, a financial institution does have the obligation to report suspicious transactions or payments to law enforcement under various bits of money laundering legislation, which means that theoretically, anything is in the game. Smaller singular transactions are likely to be ignored as there really aren't enough investigation officers to look into these things. Thanks,i knew aboutreporting suspicious acctivity ,so why will they have the right to check benefit claimants and only them ?and if so then why is this being allowed ? We will find out today. The rationale is to check whether people are lying or not. For example, if a single person has £16,000+ in savings, they are not entitled to claim." Not entitled to claim universal credit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read an article about the DWP checking benefit claimants bank accounts. Totally get why but will they have the ability to check accounts they haven't been informed about? Otherwise those claiming will just make other accounts,maybe under different names (like children). does the goverment have the authoraty to check anyones bank account? im asking as i dont know Not without an application for a production order, an access order or a similar order through a court. However, a financial institution does have the obligation to report suspicious transactions or payments to law enforcement under various bits of money laundering legislation, which means that theoretically, anything is in the game. Smaller singular transactions are likely to be ignored as there really aren't enough investigation officers to look into these things. Thanks,i knew aboutreporting suspicious acctivity ,so why will they have the right to check benefit claimants and only them ?and if so then why is this being allowed ? We will find out today. The rationale is to check whether people are lying or not. For example, if a single person has £16,000+ in savings, they are not entitled to claim. Not entitled to claim universal credit." Thanks, i just dont get why they will be allowed to check benefit claimants? Do you think the royals or mps will have their bank accounts checked as both also claim taxpayers money | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read an article about the DWP checking benefit claimants bank accounts. Totally get why but will they have the ability to check accounts they haven't been informed about? Otherwise those claiming will just make other accounts,maybe under different names (like children). does the goverment have the authoraty to check anyones bank account? im asking as i dont know Not without an application for a production order, an access order or a similar order through a court. However, a financial institution does have the obligation to report suspicious transactions or payments to law enforcement under various bits of money laundering legislation, which means that theoretically, anything is in the game. Smaller singular transactions are likely to be ignored as there really aren't enough investigation officers to look into these things. Thanks,i knew aboutreporting suspicious acctivity ,so why will they have the right to check benefit claimants and only them ?and if so then why is this being allowed ? We will find out today. The rationale is to check whether people are lying or not. For example, if a single person has £16,000+ in savings, they are not entitled to claim. Not entitled to claim universal credit. Thanks, i just dont get why they will be allowed to check benefit claimants? Do you think the royals or mps will have their bank accounts checked as both also claim taxpayers money" Why shouldn't they check the bank accounts of benefit claimants? Should also be able to check the accounts of anyone who is financially linked to the claimant if this makes a difference to eligibility. If the benefit is means tested then those means need to be verified. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thanks, i just dont get why they will be allowed to check benefit claimants? Do you think the royals or mps will have their bank accounts checked as both also claim taxpayers money" When something is "means tested", then there needs to be a way to test the means, right? Royals and MPs (and civil servants and people receiving NON-means-tested benefits) do not need their means to be tested, right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thanks, i just dont get why they will be allowed to check benefit claimants? Do you think the royals or mps will have their bank accounts checked as both also claim taxpayers money When something is "means tested", then there needs to be a way to test the means, right? Royals and MPs (and civil servants and people receiving NON-means-tested benefits) do not need their means to be tested, right?" And whether we agree with or not, the Royals get an “allowance” or a “settlement” or a type of salary in return for their services to the nation. MPs are paid a salary and expenses for doing their job. Not the same as benefits. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read an article about the DWP checking benefit claimants bank accounts. Totally get why but will they have the ability to check accounts they haven't been informed about? Otherwise those claiming will just make other accounts,maybe under different names (like children). does the goverment have the authoraty to check anyones bank account? im asking as i dont know Not without an application for a production order, an access order or a similar order through a court. However, a financial institution does have the obligation to report suspicious transactions or payments to law enforcement under various bits of money laundering legislation, which means that theoretically, anything is in the game. Smaller singular transactions are likely to be ignored as there really aren't enough investigation officers to look into these things. Thanks,i knew aboutreporting suspicious acctivity ,so why will they have the right to check benefit claimants and only them ?and if so then why is this being allowed ? We will find out today. The rationale is to check whether people are lying or not. For example, if a single person has £16,000+ in savings, they are not entitled to claim. Not entitled to claim universal credit. Thanks, i just dont get why they will be allowed to check benefit claimants? Do you think the royals or mps will have their bank accounts checked as both also claim taxpayers money" I think it's reasonable to check a person's eligibility for receiving state benefits. This is public money after all, collected from taxes that many people can ill afford. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thanks, i just dont get why they will be allowed to check benefit claimants? Do you think the royals or mps will have their bank accounts checked as both also claim taxpayers money When something is "means tested", then there needs to be a way to test the means, right? Royals and MPs (and civil servants and people receiving NON-means-tested benefits) do not need their means to be tested, right? And whether we agree with or not, the Royals get an “allowance” or a “settlement” or a type of salary in return for their services to the nation. MPs are paid a salary and expenses for doing their job. Not the same as benefits." The money for the royal's originates from the royal's in the first place | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So 6.7% for universal credit and 8.4% for the state pension…. Class 2 national insurance abolished for self employed… however if you want the state pension entitlement you can pay it voluntarily " And the devil is going to be in the detail.. because if they then have to pay class 3…. Instead of looking at £170 they will be looking at about £1000 Living wage going up by 9.4% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So 6.7% for universal credit and 8.4% for the state pension…. Class 2 national insurance abolished for self employed… however if you want the state pension entitlement you can pay it voluntarily And the devil is going to be in the detail.. because if they then have to pay class 3…. Instead of looking at £170 they will be looking at about £1000 Living wage going up by 9.4%" I don't think class 3 is gonna come into it with him cutting employee NI by 2% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So 6.7% for universal credit and 8.4% for the state pension…. Class 2 national insurance abolished for self employed… however if you want the state pension entitlement you can pay it voluntarily And the devil is going to be in the detail.. because if they then have to pay class 3…. Instead of looking at £170 they will be looking at about £1000 Living wage going up by 9.4% I don't think class 3 is gonna come into it with him cutting employee NI by 2%" Self employed people won’t see the 2% cut For those at the lower end of the self employed scale it will… I would have to do the sums… but I think the 1% cut in class 4 isn’t going to cover the class 2 to class 3 voluntary increase to keep up state pension contributions | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So 6.7% for universal credit and 8.4% for the state pension…. Class 2 national insurance abolished for self employed… however if you want the state pension entitlement you can pay it voluntarily And the devil is going to be in the detail.. because if they then have to pay class 3…. Instead of looking at £170 they will be looking at about £1000 Living wage going up by 9.4% I don't think class 3 is gonna come into it with him cutting employee NI by 2% Self employed people won’t see the 2% cut For those at the lower end of the self employed scale it will… I would have to do the sums… but I think the 1% cut in class 4 isn’t going to cover the class 2 to class 3 voluntary increase to keep up state pension contributions " As you say, we'll have to wait for the detail. From what I heard, abolishing class 2 isn't going to affect entitlement. I don't quite know what that means yet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So 6.7% for universal credit and 8.4% for the state pension…. Class 2 national insurance abolished for self employed… however if you want the state pension entitlement you can pay it voluntarily And the devil is going to be in the detail.. because if they then have to pay class 3…. Instead of looking at £170 they will be looking at about £1000 Living wage going up by 9.4% I don't think class 3 is gonna come into it with him cutting employee NI by 2% Self employed people won’t see the 2% cut For those at the lower end of the self employed scale it will… I would have to do the sums… but I think the 1% cut in class 4 isn’t going to cover the class 2 to class 3 voluntary increase to keep up state pension contributions As you say, we'll have to wait for the detail. From what I heard, abolishing class 2 isn't going to affect entitlement. I don't quite know what that means yet. " In which case the argument is going to be that the self employed already paid a lot less to keep up state pension contributions (they were only paying 165 per year) if it is now the case they are going to pay nothing.. that is going to cause a backlash, conversely if they now have to pay class 3 ni contributions which will be about £1000 per year, that is going to hurt self employed people… I did wonder one other thing…. Because he is going to rush in the employees ni cut to January instead of the normal April… possible spring general election? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So 6.7% for universal credit and 8.4% for the state pension…. Class 2 national insurance abolished for self employed… however if you want the state pension entitlement you can pay it voluntarily And the devil is going to be in the detail.. because if they then have to pay class 3…. Instead of looking at £170 they will be looking at about £1000 Living wage going up by 9.4% I don't think class 3 is gonna come into it with him cutting employee NI by 2% Self employed people won’t see the 2% cut For those at the lower end of the self employed scale it will… I would have to do the sums… but I think the 1% cut in class 4 isn’t going to cover the class 2 to class 3 voluntary increase to keep up state pension contributions As you say, we'll have to wait for the detail. From what I heard, abolishing class 2 isn't going to affect entitlement. I don't quite know what that means yet. In which case the argument is going to be that the self employed already paid a lot less to keep up state pension contributions (they were only paying 165 per year) if it is now the case they are going to pay nothing.. that is going to cause a backlash, conversely if they now have to pay class 3 ni contributions which will be about £1000 per year, that is going to hurt self employed people… I did wonder one other thing…. Because he is going to rush in the employees ni cut to January instead of the normal April… possible spring general election? " I'm praying for a Spring election. I think they want to avoid an overlap with the US election, so it's possible. The quicker we get this incompetent government out the better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So 6.7% for universal credit and 8.4% for the state pension…. Class 2 national insurance abolished for self employed… however if you want the state pension entitlement you can pay it voluntarily And the devil is going to be in the detail.. because if they then have to pay class 3…. Instead of looking at £170 they will be looking at about £1000 Living wage going up by 9.4% I don't think class 3 is gonna come into it with him cutting employee NI by 2% Self employed people won’t see the 2% cut For those at the lower end of the self employed scale it will… I would have to do the sums… but I think the 1% cut in class 4 isn’t going to cover the class 2 to class 3 voluntary increase to keep up state pension contributions As you say, we'll have to wait for the detail. From what I heard, abolishing class 2 isn't going to affect entitlement. I don't quite know what that means yet. In which case the argument is going to be that the self employed already paid a lot less to keep up state pension contributions (they were only paying 165 per year) if it is now the case they are going to pay nothing.. that is going to cause a backlash, conversely if they now have to pay class 3 ni contributions which will be about £1000 per year, that is going to hurt self employed people… I did wonder one other thing…. Because he is going to rush in the employees ni cut to January instead of the normal April… possible spring general election? " There will always be arguments re. Employed vs self employed NI. I do expect a May GE. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For all those budding chancellors out there, what do you hope will be in this budget update? What do hope won't be in it? What do you think will be in it? Finally, what should be in it for the country's sake? Get your crystal balls out peeps "A nothing budget that doesn't address the debt to gdp nor encourage growth of the economy. Than what's already going on really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ooh national insurance down from 12% to 10%….. from jan 6… That is an interesting one! So a 30% tax burden instead of a 32% one for everyone earning between 12850 and 50000…. " That lower figure needs raising! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read an article about the DWP checking benefit claimants bank accounts. Totally get why but will they have the ability to check accounts they haven't been informed about? Otherwise those claiming will just make other accounts,maybe under different names (like children). does the goverment have the authoraty to check anyones bank account? im asking as i dont know Not without an application for a production order, an access order or a similar order through a court. However, a financial institution does have the obligation to report suspicious transactions or payments to law enforcement under various bits of money laundering legislation, which means that theoretically, anything is in the game. Smaller singular transactions are likely to be ignored as there really aren't enough investigation officers to look into these things. Thanks,i knew aboutreporting suspicious acctivity ,so why will they have the right to check benefit claimants and only them ?and if so then why is this being allowed ? We will find out today. The rationale is to check whether people are lying or not. For example, if a single person has £16,000+ in savings, they are not entitled to claim. Not entitled to claim universal credit. Thanks, i just dont get why they will be allowed to check benefit claimants? Do you think the royals or mps will have their bank accounts checked as both also claim taxpayers money Why shouldn't they check the bank accounts of benefit claimants? Should also be able to check the accounts of anyone who is financially linked to the claimant if this makes a difference to eligibility. If the benefit is means tested then those means need to be verified." But why just benefit claimants?mps claim expenses on top of their wages,and the royals are worth billions but still steal our taxes ,so they both should be means tested | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read an article about the DWP checking benefit claimants bank accounts. Totally get why but will they have the ability to check accounts they haven't been informed about? Otherwise those claiming will just make other accounts,maybe under different names (like children). does the goverment have the authoraty to check anyones bank account? im asking as i dont know Not without an application for a production order, an access order or a similar order through a court. However, a financial institution does have the obligation to report suspicious transactions or payments to law enforcement under various bits of money laundering legislation, which means that theoretically, anything is in the game. Smaller singular transactions are likely to be ignored as there really aren't enough investigation officers to look into these things. Thanks,i knew aboutreporting suspicious acctivity ,so why will they have the right to check benefit claimants and only them ?and if so then why is this being allowed ? We will find out today. The rationale is to check whether people are lying or not. For example, if a single person has £16,000+ in savings, they are not entitled to claim. Not entitled to claim universal credit. Thanks, i just dont get why they will be allowed to check benefit claimants? Do you think the royals or mps will have their bank accounts checked as both also claim taxpayers money I think it's reasonable to check a person's eligibility for receiving state benefits. This is public money after all, collected from taxes that many people can ill afford." But as i said above why just benefit claimants? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thanks, i just dont get why they will be allowed to check benefit claimants? Do you think the royals or mps will have their bank accounts checked as both also claim taxpayers money When something is "means tested", then there needs to be a way to test the means, right? Royals and MPs (and civil servants and people receiving NON-means-tested benefits) do not need their means to be tested, right? And whether we agree with or not, the Royals get an “allowance” or a “settlement” or a type of salary in return for their services to the nation. MPs are paid a salary and expenses for doing their job. Not the same as benefits. The money for the royal's originates from the royal's in the first place" Dont get what you mean about originates from the royals ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thanks, i just dont get why they will be allowed to check benefit claimants? Do you think the royals or mps will have their bank accounts checked as both also claim taxpayers money When something is "means tested", then there needs to be a way to test the means, right? Royals and MPs (and civil servants and people receiving NON-means-tested benefits) do not need their means to be tested, right? And whether we agree with or not, the Royals get an “allowance” or a “settlement” or a type of salary in return for their services to the nation. MPs are paid a salary and expenses for doing their job. Not the same as benefits. The money for the royal's originates from the royal's in the first place Dont get what you mean about originates from the royals ?" They pay 100% of the profits from their crown estate business to the government. The government then hand back around 15 to 20% of it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thanks, i just dont get why they will be allowed to check benefit claimants? Do you think the royals or mps will have their bank accounts checked as both also claim taxpayers money When something is "means tested", then there needs to be a way to test the means, right? Royals and MPs (and civil servants and people receiving NON-means-tested benefits) do not need their means to be tested, right? And whether we agree with or not, the Royals get an “allowance” or a “settlement” or a type of salary in return for their services to the nation. MPs are paid a salary and expenses for doing their job. Not the same as benefits. The money for the royal's originates from the royal's in the first place Dont get what you mean about originates from the royals ?" You need to look into this yourself. Google is your friends. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thanks, i just dont get why they will be allowed to check benefit claimants? Do you think the royals or mps will have their bank accounts checked as both also claim taxpayers money When something is "means tested", then there needs to be a way to test the means, right? Royals and MPs (and civil servants and people receiving NON-means-tested benefits) do not need their means to be tested, right? And whether we agree with or not, the Royals get an “allowance” or a “settlement” or a type of salary in return for their services to the nation. MPs are paid a salary and expenses for doing their job. Not the same as benefits. The money for the royal's originates from the royal's in the first place Dont get what you mean about originates from the royals ? They pay 100% of the profits from their crown estate business to the government. The government then hand back around 15 to 20% of it " Them crown estates were st_len centuries ago and im pretty sure they get tax payers money to run them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thanks, i just dont get why they will be allowed to check benefit claimants? Do you think the royals or mps will have their bank accounts checked as both also claim taxpayers money When something is "means tested", then there needs to be a way to test the means, right? Royals and MPs (and civil servants and people receiving NON-means-tested benefits) do not need their means to be tested, right? And whether we agree with or not, the Royals get an “allowance” or a “settlement” or a type of salary in return for their services to the nation. MPs are paid a salary and expenses for doing their job. Not the same as benefits. The money for the royal's originates from the royal's in the first place Dont get what you mean about originates from the royals ? They pay 100% of the profits from their crown estate business to the government. The government then hand back around 15 to 20% of it Them crown estates were st_len centuries ago and im pretty sure they get tax payers money to run them " The raining monarch automatically owns vast amounts of UK land and I think the sea bed too. They levy a fee on the use of the land which is paid to the crown estate, which administers all this land. 100% of the profits is paid to the government. Then the government pay back 15 to 20% and keep the remaining 80 to 85%. The fact that the monarch gets this land is a separate subject but those are the facts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
