Winter Fuel Allowance

[Jacob]

what do you class as rich Mr G?

Inheritance tax for starters - tax the dead, they won't miss it they don't need anything.
Then anyone earning over £100k?
No easy answer; a graduated tax increasing from zero at some definition of a minimum for subsistence, to say 90% over the £100k?
Perhaps a high tax on rental income - landlords are parasites after all.
It's open to endless discussion but the principle is obvious.
The current govt is intent on taxing the poor.

 

[Digit]

So Mr Grim you would prevent me from passing what I have created onto my children just so that the 'poor' might have a few coppers more. Would you care to justify that?

Roy.

 

[Lons]

John,
As a younger one (only 40), I have to say I agree with you.
You've paid into it all your life so you deserve to collect on those payments when you get to your age. I have a feeling that by the time I get to that age there'll be next to bugger all to collect.
The current deficit isn't down to the bankers (as I understand it) - that comes out of someother debt pool. I believe the national debt (as quoted by news etc) doesn't include the amount spent bailing out the banks as that's classed as of balance sheet debt.
If you include all the banking stuff and the debt is way way higher than (1 trillion) often quoted in the news.

Should all these various extra payments be means tested - possibly but then you've paid into it so why shouldn't you collect.

Valid points :!: and we all know who robbed the pension pot and sold off the gold reserves. (oops - political :roll: )

The problem is surely compounded is it not in that the hoards of "career" benefit recipients, often with similar parents and with their own offspring, many of whom grow up never to work, are not contributing to the pension fund to which we all subscribed.

their benefits and future state pension is seen as a right despite them never having paid a penny into the system and probably never will. (I know and know of many such families who can expertly massage the system without difficulty) - makes my blood boil.

Certainly not all, but definately a sizeable number have no intention of ever changing and I feer that we are too far down the road to reverse the situation.

Get rid of these parasites and there would be plenty of funds to help those who "really" need it IMO.

Like many of us, my wife and I always have and still are paying in to the state system and have every right to reclaim this when the time comes. we have also prudently planned for our retirement and will be taxed on this.
My wife, expecting to retire at 60, must work until she is 62+ as the goalposts were moved (another 2 1/2 years contributions and less time available to enjoy retirement).

Our mortgage is paid up after 25 years of scrimping and forgoing luxuries to pay for it and because we have a large house we are penalised in council tax charges paying 4 times as much for the two of us than large families using most of the available services.


Ahh - such is life - feel better after the grumpy old man bit :wink: We are lucky but surely we largely contribute to that luck through endeavour do we not?

Bob

 

[Lons]

what do you class as rich Mr G?

Inheritance tax for starters - tax the dead, they won't miss it they don't need anything.
Then anyone earning over £100k?
No easy answer; a graduated tax increasing from zero at some definition of a minimum for subsistence, to say 90% over the £100k?
Perhaps a high tax on rental income - landlords are parasites after all.
It's open to endless discussion but the principle is obvious.
The current govt is intent on taxing the poor.

I assume Mr G that you say that in jest :roll: :roll:

So Mr Grim you would prevent me from passing what I have created onto my children just so that the 'poor' might have a few coppers more. Would you care to justify that?

Roy.

And I'd like to know that as well
Bob

 

[Paul Chapman]

Perhaps a high tax on rental income - landlords are parasites after all.

I used to think you were just a silly old fool but now I see you're obnoxious with it.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[RogerS]

...
Perhaps a high tax on rental income - landlords are parasites after all.
....

I agree, Mr G. No one should be allowed to own property. The state must own everything.

 

[matt]

Means testing is an interesting one... For some the benefits are an enabler. Allowing them to live in a larger house in a nicer area. Have more kids. Afford a car or two too. And otherwise not do without. I don't have a problem with this if the recipients value what they receive and put it to good use (i.e. bring up educated and socially aware kids for starters). I think this is some of what the "system" actually wants and needs. If someone were
to decide on a threshold I think there would be an undesirable shift in the economy and demographics. But... is this by design or accident?

With regard to the "youngsters" - I don't know a single "youngster" that has an axe to grind where pensions are concerned.

 

[RogerS]

Lons...need to point out Mr G's rules of debate before you get sucked in

Rule 1 - throw in some tendentious riposte

Rule 2 - counter anyone arguing against Rule 1 by declaiming them as a Daily Mail reader

Rule 3 - Anything a Daily Mail reader says is bollo*cks

Rule 4 - if anyone overcomes Rules 1, 2 or 3 then think up and throw in some aphorism that has nothing at all to do with the debate or

Rule 5 - take something raised and make a point completely out of context and so try and take the discussion off on an irrelevant tangent.

Rule 6 - at no time engage in any rational debate

Rule 7 - Karl Marx is God

 

[Lons]

Lons...need to point out Mr G's rules of debate before you get sucked in

Rule 1 - throw in some tendentious riposte

Rule 2 - counter anyone arguing against Rule 1 by declaiming them as a Daily Mail reader

Rule 3 - Anything a Daily Mail reader says is bollo*cks

Rule 4 - if anyone overcomes Rules 1, 2 or 3 then think up and throw in some aphorism that has nothing at all to do with the debate or

Rule 5 - take something raised and make a point completely out of context and so try and take the discussion off on an irrelevant tangent.

Rule 6 - at no time engage in any rational debate

Rule 7 - Karl Marx is God

B******s

Roger.

That's me stuffed then :!:

Had to go shopping with the wife today and read the daily mail over a coffee in Costa. (only "free" paper on the rack.)

Must have read quite a lot of bull***t then :wink:

Means testing is an interesting one... For some the benefits are an enabler. Allowing them to live in a larger house in a nicer area. Have more kids. Afford a car or two too. And otherwise not do without. I don't have a problem with this if the recipients value what they receive and put it to good use (i.e. bring up educated and socially aware kids for starters). I think this is some of what the "system" actually wants and needs. If someone were
to decide on a threshold I think there would be an undesirable shift in the economy and demographics. But... is this by design or accident?

With regard to the "youngsters" - I don't know a single "youngster" that has an axe to grind where pensions are concerned.

I do have a problem with that matt.

My kids are saving and are well aware of the limitations of the state pension. They are also both on the housing ladder and make sacrifices to be there. That is their choice and I applaud it as being responsible.

The problem with the kids I mentioned is that they see no future other than benefits and possibly crime and drugs, as that is the environment of their families and upbringing, often spanning generations.

Not the kids fault, but the system that has allowed the adults to get away with it at the expense of those other poor souls who are in genuine need.

Bob

 

[Digit]

Looks as though we are damned beyond redemption Bob, I just thought that he was congenitally awkward! :lol:

Roy.

 

[Mike.C]

Bob wrote,

The problem is surely compounded is it not in that the hoards of "career" benefit recipients, often with similar parents and with their own offspring, many of whom grow up never to work, are not contributing to the pension fund to which we all subscribed.

There is no doubt that there are some career benefit recipients, and it goes without saying what should happen to them. But the thing that strikes me as strange is how can the government say that out of the 2 million DLA claimants 1 million will be made to get jobs and loose their money. Surely if they know that there a million cheats they should have had their money stopped long ago, and if it is just a rough estimate then that still means that they know of people on the fiddle. But how do they do it because I thought that you needed a medical?

Cheers

Mike

 

[Lons]

Bob wrote,

The problem is surely compounded is it not in that the hoards of "career" benefit recipients, often with similar parents and with their own offspring, many of whom grow up never to work, are not contributing to the pension fund to which we all subscribed.

There is no doubt that there are some career benefit recipients, and it goes without saying what should happen to them. But the thing that strikes me as strange is how can the government say that out of the 2 million DLA claimants 1 million will be made to get jobs and loose their money. Surely if they know that there a million cheats they should have had their money stopped long ago, and if it is just a rough estimate then that still means that they know of people on the fiddle. But how do they do it because I thought that you needed a medical?

Cheers

Mike

Just dammed statistics Mike. They have to justify statements. Doesn't matter which government, they can hardly tell the truth such as " We have no idea how many - illegal immigrants \ paedophiles \ benefit cheats etc stec there are"

It's down to the individuals on the front line policing it and for whatever reasons, they do a very poor job.

Checks are infrequent, spot check visits notified in advance, warnings not followed up and eventual action rarely tough enough.

Whatever they tell you, incapacity benefit is easy to obtain and continue for years. especially if saying it's a back problem.


Mike

I know 1 guy who has claimed incapacity for 13 years and he's only 38 now - stomach complaint - he's as fit as a fiddle, has an allotment and takes drugs. Has 3 kids by 2 partners and although he's been hauled in for cheating 3 times, is still getting full benefit. :?

I know of numerous other cases, 1st hand information, including single mothers with 2 generations of claimants and one mother with 4 kids by 4 different fathers with a 5th live in partner (not declared) and 2 of her teenage daughters who've done exactly the same and both have council properties.

I could highlight another dozen without even thinking about it.

Looks as though we are damned beyond redemption Bob, I just thought that he was congenitally awkward!

Don't get me started Roy - please :lol:

 

[Mike.C]

Bob wrote,

The problem is surely compounded is it not in that the hoards of "career" benefit recipients, often with similar parents and with their own offspring, many of whom grow up never to work, are not contributing to the pension fund to which we all subscribed.

There is no doubt that there are some career benefit recipients, and it goes without saying what should happen to them. But the thing that strikes me as strange is how can the government say that out of the 2 million DLA claimants 1 million will be made to get jobs and loose their money. Surely if they know that there a million cheats they should have had their money stopped long ago, and if it is just a rough estimate then that still means that they know of people on the fiddle. But how do they do it because I thought that you needed a medical?

Cheers

Mike

Just dammed statistics Mike. They have to justify statements. Doesn't matter which government, they can hardly tell the truth such as " We have no idea how many - illegal immigrants \ paedophiles \ benefit cheats etc stec there are"

It's down to the individuals on the front line policing it and for whatever reasons, they do a very poor job.

Checks are infrequent, spot check visits notified in advance, warnings not followed up and eventual action rarely tough enough.

Whatever they tell you, incapacity benefit is easy to obtain and continue for years. especially if saying it's a back problem.


Mike

I know 1 guy who has claimed incapacity for 13 years and he's only 38 now - stomach complaint - he's as fit as a fiddle, has an allotment and takes drugs. Has 3 kids by 2 partners and although he's been hauled in for cheating 3 times, is still getting full benefit. :?

I know of numerous other cases, 1st hand information, including single mothers with 2 generations of claimants and one mother with 4 kids by 4 different fathers with a 5th live in partner (not declared) and 2 of her teenage daughters who've done exactly the same and both have council properties.

I could highlight another dozen without even thinking about it.

Looks as though we are damned beyond redemption Bob, I just thought that he was congenitally awkward!

Don't get me started Roy - please :lol:

Totally unbelieveable, and it's happening right under our noses. :twisted:

Cheers

Mike

 

[BMac]

I find it hard to understand how people can scam Incapacity Benefit because I was declared 'disabled' by The System five years ago and offered Incapacity Benefit. I obviously applied and was turned down because the small pension (I paid for) that I receive put me 51 pence a week over the limit for qualification, so I get no money. Now, I just checked my records and can tell you that in the first year I was registered for Incapacity Benefit I had 4 callers, the second 4, the third 2 and the fourth 1, all to ascertain that "you are getting all the money you are entitled to". All these calls were unannounced and all included taking a report of my medical condition, my general demeanour and a list of my medications.

As well as that, each year I have to send my March, April and May pension advice slips to the Incapacity Benefit people 'to ascertain that I'm getting all the money I am entitled to' and each year, about now, I get the stock letter telling me I'm not entitled to any money.

How can there be fraud if the Incapacity Benefit people are as enthusiastic about checking everyone else as they are about checking I am not cheating the system by getting no money?

Brendan

 

[Jacob]

So Mr Grim you would prevent me from passing what I have created onto my children just so that the 'poor' might have a few coppers more. Would you care to justify that?

Roy.

Death taxes are on what you haven't passed on to your children (whilst you were alive).

 

[Anonymous]

"Grim Says"

Inheritance tax for starters - tax the dead, they won't miss it they don't need anything.
Then anyone earning over £100k?
No easy answer; a graduated tax increasing from zero at some definition of a minimum for subsistence, to say 90% over the £100k?
Perhaps a high tax on rental income - landlords are parasites after all.
It's open to endless discussion but the principle is obvious.
The current govt is intent on taxing the poor.

You're not just a crazy fool, you are a old crazy fool.

 

[Digit]

Well Mr Grim unless they have changed the law you are wrong! You have to survive for 7 yrs after making your estate over to your children to avoid tax, and if they pre decease you you're in it!
I would also point out sir that what you are advocating is a method of avoiding what you seem to consider is a fair imposition!
Check Duke of Bedford!
You do have to take a medical for such things as incapacity benefit, but it's not the most vigourous I've been through.

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

Well Mr Grim unless they have changed the law you are wrong! You have to survive for 7 yrs after making your estate over to your children to avoid tax, and if they pre decease you you're in it!
I would also point out sir that what you are advocating is a method of avoiding what you seem to consider is a fair imposition!
Check Duke of Bedford!...

Yes I knew abt the 7 years. It may lead to to (legal) tax avoidance but that's OK if people re-distribute their wealth. Stiffer death duties would encourage them further.

 

[Digit]

Why should I redistribute what I've worked to gain?

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

Why should I redistribute what I've worked to gain?

Roy.

The price of living in a civilised society. You get it back many times over. Compare your standard of living (plus education, health care etc) with that of a woodworker in the 3rd world - or any low tax economy.