09-10-2012, 07:42 AM
11
Re: The Nasty Party
A tax rate of 50p is not taxation - it's confiscation! What incentive is there to be successful if you're being robbed of your earnings?And why should those of us who have worked hard, provided for our families and looked after our money have to support those who feel that the world owes them a living?
The welfare state should provide a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.
It's high time that a lot of benefits were reviewed.
09-10-2012, 09:43 AM
12
Re: The Nasty Party
Originally Posted by Grumblewagon
->
A tax rate of 50p is not taxation - it's confiscation! What incentive is there to be successful if you're being robbed of your earnings?And why should those of us who have worked hard, provided for our families and looked after our money have to support those who feel that the world owes them a living?
The welfare state should provide a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.
It's high time that a lot of benefits were reviewed.
09-10-2012, 09:45 AM
13
Re: The Nasty Party
Originally Posted by plantman
->
So you think everything is hunky dory with the welfare system and we should just keep doling out money to anyone and everyone regardless?
But Barry, its NOT regardless. Parliament determined who and in what circumstances a person is entitled to particular benefits and if you meet the criteria for receipt of those benefits you receive them, if not your claim is rejected and you then have the statutory right of appeal just like in the ordinary court system.
09-10-2012, 06:17 PM
17
Re: The Nasty Party
Originally Posted by Uncle Joe
->
But Barry, its NOT regardless. Parliament determined who and in what circumstances a person is entitled to particular benefits and if you meet the criteria for receipt of those benefits you receive them, if not your claim is rejected and you then have the statutory right of appeal just like in the ordinary court system.
09-10-2012, 07:57 PM
18
Re: The Nasty Party
Originally Posted by plantman
->
I don't disagree with any of that UJ, but the argument is whether legislation should be changed to moderate the types and levels of benefit. I believe it should, because we are being bled dry both by the welfare budget, and by the abuse of the welfare budget. As others have said on here, welfare benefits should be a safety net, and not a lifestyle choice, which it certainly is for some..
10-10-2012, 07:46 AM
19
Re: The Nasty Party
Joe, I think he could find the money by just tightening all the loop holes that allow shirkers to take our money but it is Brown and co you really need to get at for putting Britain in this ludicrous situation.As for pensions, long ago I advised people to take out their own pension and not rely on a Government one, I was given that advise decades ago and it is true today. People should not rely on someone else to pay for their way through life. It is your life so take charge of it and do not put the burden onto others.
I would not have the winter allowance if I had a choice but I don't, as for the free TV license, you have to be 75 to get that so if you are earning £100,000+ then you have a lot of capital invested.
10-10-2012, 07:20 PM
20
Re: The Nasty Party
Originally Posted by Uncle Joe
->
Alright, let's start at the top, anyone with a present income of £100,000 + should make provision for their own retirement now and NOT receive a state Retirement pension when due, likewise they don't get a Winter fuel payment, nor be entitled to a free Television Licence.
But surely without hard working, entrepreneurial, successful people both generating employment for the masses and paying their own taxes, there would be no welfare state at all. So would you really, after all of those years generating all of that employment, working all of those hours, worrying all of that worry and paying all of that tax into the system, then seek to deny them the most basic of paybacks in their retirement? Personally I find that pretty shameful..
|
|
