FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Better off on the dole
Better off on the dole
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But protect the millionaires by all costs because they create wealth!! Pay your people correctly " Who’s protecting millionaires and what are they being protected from? Could you define what you mean by “correctly”? Perhaps tell us what you think the minimum wage should be? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Exactly the point the French are making re channel crossings. The UK benefits system is too generous and a magnet for migrants, legal or otherwise. Likewise, overly high welfare benefits are a disincentive to work. In a nutshell, we are living beyond our means as a nation." They can't claim benefits. So theirs that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But protect the millionaires by all costs because they create wealth!! Pay your people correctly Who’s protecting millionaires and what are they being protected from? Could you define what you mean by “correctly”? Perhaps tell us what you think the minimum wage should be? " People who cry about wealth taxes. Absolutely people should be able to afford to live comfortably, not worry about bills, go out once week have a holiday once a year. If oaps are considered poor at 35k a year why aren't "working people"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Exactly the point the French are making re channel crossings. The UK benefits system is too generous and a magnet for migrants, legal or otherwise. Likewise, overly high welfare benefits are a disincentive to work. In a nutshell, we are living beyond our means as a nation. They can't claim benefits. So theirs that " Well no, but there's the cost of accommodation, legal aid and asylum support payouts. At the end of the day it all has to be paid for from the public purse which isn't big enough for the demands. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Exactly the point the French are making re channel crossings. The UK benefits system is too generous and a magnet for migrants, legal or otherwise. Likewise, overly high welfare benefits are a disincentive to work. In a nutshell, we are living beyond our means as a nation. They can't claim benefits. So theirs that Well no, but there's the cost of accommodation, legal aid and asylum support payouts. At the end of the day it all has to be paid for from the public purse which isn't big enough for the demands." Because cruella crashed the asylum process deliberately. They £49 a week if not in accommodation The ones in accommodation get £9 Begruging that to the most desperate people on earth really? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Exactly the point the French are making re channel crossings. The UK benefits system is too generous and a magnet for migrants, legal or otherwise. Likewise, overly high welfare benefits are a disincentive to work. In a nutshell, we are living beyond our means as a nation. They can't claim benefits. So theirs that Well no, but there's the cost of accommodation, legal aid and asylum support payouts. At the end of the day it all has to be paid for from the public purse which isn't big enough for the demands. Because cruella crashed the asylum process deliberately. They £49 a week if not in accommodation The ones in accommodation get £9 Begruging that to the most desperate people on earth really?" I wouldn't begrudge genuine asylum claimants. The trouble is our asylum system is being abused by bogus claimants aided and abetted by criminal smugglers. This both defrauds the taxpayer and prevents genuine asylum applicants getting a prompt and fair hearing. is that what you want to throw money at? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Exactly the point the French are making re channel crossings. The UK benefits system is too generous and a magnet for migrants, legal or otherwise. Likewise, overly high welfare benefits are a disincentive to work. In a nutshell, we are living beyond our means as a nation. They can't claim benefits. So theirs that Well no, but there's the cost of accommodation, legal aid and asylum support payouts. At the end of the day it all has to be paid for from the public purse which isn't big enough for the demands. Because cruella crashed the asylum process deliberately. They £49 a week if not in accommodation The ones in accommodation get £9 Begruging that to the most desperate people on earth really? I wouldn't begrudge genuine asylum claimants. The trouble is our asylum system is being abused by bogus claimants aided and abetted by criminal smugglers. This both defrauds the taxpayer and prevents genuine asylum applicants getting a prompt and fair hearing. is that what you want to throw money at?" The asylum process is just that a process!! You can't abuse it, it's to identify people with or without a claim. Seeing as the approval rate is 77% and the others are deported. I don't see it being abused, it's working correctly and now actually working correctly. Yvette doesn't get the credit she deserves in this area | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Centre for Social Justice has said sickness benefit claimants are £2,500 a year better off than people working full-time. The economically inactive who claim Universal Credit with average housing benefit and Personal Independence Payments can receive £25,000. That compares with £22,500 that those on the National Living Wage take home after paying their taxes. I can feel a bad back coming on and it’s making me anxious " are benefits too high or are wages too low? housing costs have risen far more quickly than wages or general inflation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But protect the millionaires by all costs because they create wealth!! Pay your people correctly" They do pay them correctly. They pay them the minimum wage or more. That's what the government has determined to be the correct level of pay. It's not millionaires or businesses you should be shouting at, it's the government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But protect the millionaires by all costs because they create wealth!! Pay your people correctly They do pay them correctly. They pay them the minimum wage or more. That's what the government has determined to be the correct level of pay. It's not millionaires or businesses you should be shouting at, it's the government." That's the minimum wage. You can pay your people more you know. Your argument is basically without state intervention people should work for nothing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Centre for Social Justice has said sickness benefit claimants are £2,500 a year better off than people working full-time. The economically inactive who claim Universal Credit with average housing benefit and Personal Independence Payments can receive £25,000. That compares with £22,500 that those on the National Living Wage take home after paying their taxes. I can feel a bad back coming on and it’s making me anxious are benefits too high or are wages too low? housing costs have risen far more quickly than wages or general inflation " People who need to claim PIP generally need to pay more for items they need to survive - its not cheap being disabled and needing essential items over and above a non disabled person. That includes people with ASD and mental health. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Centre for Social Justice has said sickness benefit claimants are £2,500 a year better off than people working full-time. The economically inactive who claim Universal Credit with average housing benefit and Personal Independence Payments can receive £25,000. That compares with £22,500 that those on the National Living Wage take home after paying their taxes. I can feel a bad back coming on and it’s making me anxious are benefits too high or are wages too low? housing costs have risen far more quickly than wages or general inflation People who need to claim PIP generally need to pay more for items they need to survive - its not cheap being disabled and needing essential items over and above a non disabled person. That includes people with ASD and mental health. " I can agree with that to some extent. But that’s just a matter of prioritising your spending. My son’s socks cost £8 a pair and have to be ordered from the US. Been like that for 15 years. But he hasn’t had a new iPhone every 2 years with a £75 a month contract like some of his mates when he was at school. He didn’t have £25 t-shirts and £100 trainers. I’m not saying all kids on benefits have that. Some parents run a car and scrimp on other things. While some get their hair and nails done every month but use a food bank. There isn’t unlimited money, there wasn’t when in come tax was 33%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One straightforward reform, reduce the value of standard benefits gradually over time. If someone remains on benefits after 24 months without a valid exemption (disability, caring responsibilities), support should be withdrawn entirely. This would reintroduce a sense of responsibility, encourage work or retraining, and ease pressure on the welfare budget. Support should be a safety net, not a lifestyle." Given that the government spends about £150 billion a year on the state pension, do you think this benefit should be reduced over time, with exemptions of course? If support should be a safety net not a lifestyle then means testing the pension would surely fit your agenda. Has anyone looked at how much money could be saved? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One straightforward reform, reduce the value of standard benefits gradually over time. If someone remains on benefits after 24 months without a valid exemption (disability, caring responsibilities), support should be withdrawn entirely. This would reintroduce a sense of responsibility, encourage work or retraining, and ease pressure on the welfare budget. Support should be a safety net, not a lifestyle. Given that the government spends about £150 billion a year on the state pension, do you think this benefit should be reduced over time, with exemptions of course? If support should be a safety net not a lifestyle then means testing the pension would surely fit your agenda. Has anyone looked at how much money could be saved?" Kemi's on it!! And for once I support her!! The triple lock definitely has to go | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One straightforward reform, reduce the value of standard benefits gradually over time. If someone remains on benefits after 24 months without a valid exemption (disability, caring responsibilities), support should be withdrawn entirely. This would reintroduce a sense of responsibility, encourage work or retraining, and ease pressure on the welfare budget. Support should be a safety net, not a lifestyle. Given that the government spends about £150 billion a year on the state pension, do you think this benefit should be reduced over time, with exemptions of course? If support should be a safety net not a lifestyle then means testing the pension would surely fit your agenda. Has anyone looked at how much money could be saved?" Pensioners have paid into the system for decades through National Insurance. That is fundamentally different from working age benefits. The state pension is deferred income. This is not directed at you, it is an observation over the last 12 month.. I find it strange how those on the left often direct enormous amounts of criticism towards those who have already contributed, while showing too much compassion for those of working age who aren’t contributing at all. I genuinely don’t understand how or why that imbalance has become acceptable? What would be the problem with reducing benefits over time as I stated above? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pensioners have paid into the system for decades through National Insurance. That is fundamentally different from working age benefits. The state pension is deferred income. This is not directed at you, it is an observation over the last 12 month.. I find it strange how those on the left often direct enormous amounts of criticism towards those who have already contributed, while showing too much compassion for those of working age who aren’t contributing at all. I genuinely don’t understand how or why that imbalance has become acceptable." But what you are saying isn't true. You still get a state pension even if you've never worked a day in your life. It's just a lower amount. "What would be the problem with reducing benefits over time as I stated above?" Yes, what would be the problem in reducing state pensions until after 24 months (by your suggested scheme) there was no payment for those who didn't need the safety net? Let's say people with full NI contributions were exempt from your scheme but surely by your reasoning it would be unacceptable for those of working age who hadn't contributed at all to benefit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pensioners have paid into the system for decades through National Insurance. That is fundamentally different from working age benefits. The state pension is deferred income. This is not directed at you, it is an observation over the last 12 month.. I find it strange how those on the left often direct enormous amounts of criticism towards those who have already contributed, while showing too much compassion for those of working age who aren’t contributing at all. I genuinely don’t understand how or why that imbalance has become acceptable. But what you are saying isn't true. You still get a state pension even if you've never worked a day in your life. It's just a lower amount. What would be the problem with reducing benefits over time as I stated above? Yes, what would be the problem in reducing state pensions until after 24 months (by your suggested scheme) there was no payment for those who didn't need the safety net? Let's say people with full NI contributions were exempt from your scheme but surely by your reasoning it would be unacceptable for those of working age who hadn't contributed at all to benefit." My proposal tapers benefits over 24 months to encourage work, it’s about restoring fairness by removing the lifestyle of living on benefits. Pensions, unlike welfare, are earned through decades of contributions they’re not the same. I do find it funny how the left quote countries like Sweden for high taxes as a success, but ignore their systems are contribution based, time limited, and tied to work. The left want the high taxes, but not the accountability that comes with them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's not how our system works. You don't pay in to a pot with your name on it. It's a pay as you go system. The OAPs who have exteacted everything from the state, from free university education, cheap housing, a growing economy now still want handouts whilst consistently voting to make life poorer and harder for their descendants " Spot on & has been discussed on another thread recently. State Pension as is isn’t affordable. Boomers should work/should have worked longer than they will or did. A lot of them end up being net recipients. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pensioners have paid into the system for decades through National Insurance. That is fundamentally different from working age benefits. The state pension is deferred income. This is not directed at you, it is an observation over the last 12 month.. I find it strange how those on the left often direct enormous amounts of criticism towards those who have already contributed, while showing too much compassion for those of working age who aren’t contributing at all. I genuinely don’t understand how or why that imbalance has become acceptable. But what you are saying isn't true. You still get a state pension even if you've never worked a day in your life. It's just a lower amount. What would be the problem with reducing benefits over time as I stated above? Yes, what would be the problem in reducing state pensions until after 24 months (by your suggested scheme) there was no payment for those who didn't need the safety net? Let's say people with full NI contributions were exempt from your scheme but surely by your reasoning it would be unacceptable for those of working age who hadn't contributed at all to benefit. My proposal tapers benefits over 24 months to encourage work, it’s about restoring fairness by removing the lifestyle of living on benefits. Pensions, unlike welfare, are earned through decades of contributions they’re not the same. I do find it funny how the left quote countries like Sweden for high taxes as a success, but ignore their systems are contribution based, time limited, and tied to work. The left want the high taxes, but not the accountability that comes with them. " The left want high taxes? Tell me what was tax under Johnson and Sunak and party were they? From my own personal point of view I want a fair taxation. Nothing is set in stone though, right. So to get as much money as possible as quickly as possible a tax rade on the wealthiest to inject into the economy, to get the country back on its feet and moving again. When you then start getting indirect tax back in you can loosen the direct tax on wealth and elsewhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's not how our system works. You don't pay in to a pot with your name on it. It's a pay as you go system. The OAPs who have exteacted everything from the state, from free university education, cheap housing, a growing economy now still want handouts whilst consistently voting to make life poorer and harder for their descendants Spot on & has been discussed on another thread recently. State Pension as is isn’t affordable. Boomers should work/should have worked longer than they will or did. A lot of them end up being net recipients. " had a chance to get rid of all the boomers back in 2020 yet all those who don't seem to like the boomers are the same sort of people who accused people of being granny killers if they didn't get jabbed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pensions, unlike welfare, are earned through decades of contributions they’re not the same." Repeating something that isn't true doesn't make it true. The state pension is paid to people who have never worked a day in their life. Just to be clear. I think it's absolutely fine for people who haven't ever paid NI to still have a small taxpayer provided income in their twilight years. Even the super rich because I'm a left-winger who thinks such things should not be means tested for a variety of reasons. But according to the right-wing world view you expounded earlier this ought to be phased out over a 24 month period for anyone "without a valid exemption (disability, caring responsibilities)". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's not how our system works. You don't pay in to a pot with your name on it. It's a pay as you go system. The OAPs who have exteacted everything from the state, from free university education, cheap housing, a growing economy now still want handouts whilst consistently voting to make life poorer and harder for their descendants Spot on & has been discussed on another thread recently. State Pension as is isn’t affordable. Boomers should work/should have worked longer than they will or did. A lot of them end up being net recipients. had a chance to get rid of all the boomers back in 2020 yet all those who don't seem to like the boomers are the same sort of people who accused people of being granny killers if they didn't get jabbed" What makes you think we don't like them? As a cohort they have benefited from the paternal state and post war settlement but want to remove everything they've ever benefited from for future generations. That's what we dislike, not them as individuals | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pensions, unlike welfare, are earned through decades of contributions they’re not the same. Repeating something that isn't true doesn't make it true. The state pension is paid to people who have never worked a day in their life. Just to be clear. I think it's absolutely fine for people who haven't ever paid NI to still have a small taxpayer provided income in their twilight years. Even the super rich because I'm a left-winger who thinks such things should not be means tested for a variety of reasons. But according to the right-wing world view you expounded earlier this ought to be phased out over a 24 month period for anyone "without a valid exemption (disability, caring responsibilities)". " Slicing and dicing again to avoid the wider context. I will not continue along these lines. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Slicing and dicing again to avoid the wider context. I will not continue along these lines." Nobody is forcing you to. Here's what you wrote in full... "My proposal tapers benefits over 24 months to encourage work, it’s about restoring fairness by removing the lifestyle of living on benefits. Pensions, unlike welfare, are earned through decades of contributions they’re not the same. I do find it funny how the left quote countries like Sweden for high taxes as a success, but ignore their systems are contribution based, time limited, and tied to work. The left want the high taxes, but not the accountability that comes with them." My focusing on the second paragraph doesn't change the meaning in the slightest because your second paragraph is untrue regardless of the context provided by the first and third paragraphs. The state pension is paid to people who have never paid any NI contributions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. " Only if you're worth it over 10 million | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Slicing and dicing again to avoid the wider context. I will not continue along these lines. Nobody is forcing you to. Here's what you wrote in full... My proposal tapers benefits over 24 months to encourage work, it’s about restoring fairness by removing the lifestyle of living on benefits. Pensions, unlike welfare, are earned through decades of contributions they’re not the same. I do find it funny how the left quote countries like Sweden for high taxes as a success, but ignore their systems are contribution based, time limited, and tied to work. The left want the high taxes, but not the accountability that comes with them. My focusing on the second paragraph doesn't change the meaning in the slightest because your second paragraph is untrue regardless of the context provided by the first and third paragraphs. The state pension is paid to people who have never paid any NI contributions. " Yes it does, as benefits would never have been paid to an individual post 24 months. They will have no alternative but to find work and therefore be paying into the welfare system. However taking your point as an outlier, lets say that a person aged 30 exhausts their 2 years of benefits and never claims again and never works again, on retirement are they entitled to a pension. It could be argued that they have managed so far without benefits so continue without. It could also be argued the whole premise benefits would not be cut if there were valid exceptions. Reaching retirement age = valid exceptions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Slicing and dicing again to avoid the wider context. I will not continue along these lines. Nobody is forcing you to. Here's what you wrote in full... My proposal tapers benefits over 24 months to encourage work, it’s about restoring fairness by removing the lifestyle of living on benefits. Pensions, unlike welfare, are earned through decades of contributions they’re not the same. I do find it funny how the left quote countries like Sweden for high taxes as a success, but ignore their systems are contribution based, time limited, and tied to work. The left want the high taxes, but not the accountability that comes with them. My focusing on the second paragraph doesn't change the meaning in the slightest because your second paragraph is untrue regardless of the context provided by the first and third paragraphs. The state pension is paid to people who have never paid any NI contributions. Yes it does, as benefits would never have been paid to an individual post 24 months. They will have no alternative but to find work and therefore be paying into the welfare system. However taking your point as an outlier, lets say that a person aged 30 exhausts their 2 years of benefits and never claims again and never works again, on retirement are they entitled to a pension. It could be argued that they have managed so far without benefits so continue without. It could also be argued the whole premise benefits would not be cut if there were valid exceptions. Reaching retirement age = valid exceptions. " Breathing is now a valid exception | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all." I think everyone on the left thinks that disabled people deserve support but could you point out any post that says minimum wage should be increased to around £18 per hour? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Breathing is now a valid exception" Far more succinct than I would have managed. Thank you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million " Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? " For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"9.5 million claiming benefits (including those in work claiming top ups). Add another 12 million state pension claimants, and 14 million under 18’s. One million youth unemployed and 1.7 million at university living on interest bearing loans 34 million working paying for all this. Good luck tacking this " Declining birth rate and hostility towards migrants at an all time high and ramping up. Who exactly should pay? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher " Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. " That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"9.5 million claiming benefits (including those in work claiming top ups). Add another 12 million state pension claimants, and 14 million under 18’s. One million youth unemployed and 1.7 million at university living on interest bearing loans 34 million working paying for all this. Good luck tacking this Declining birth rate and hostility towards migrants at an all time high and ramping up. Who exactly should pay?" 30.3% of all live births in England and Wales were to non-UK-born mothers, the highest proportion since records began Muslim birth rate in uk 2.9 per woman, non muslim 1.4 per woman. 51.4% of Muslims aged 16-64 were employed, compared to the overall population rate of 70.9%. Not hard to see why there is hostility. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 30.3% of all live births in England and Wales were to non-UK-born mothers, the highest proportion since records began Muslim birth rate in uk 2.9 per woman, non muslim 1.4 per woman. 51.4% of Muslims aged 16-64 were employed, compared to the overall population rate of 70.9%. " ...because so many of them are on maternity leave? 🤔 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does " You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"9.5 million claiming benefits (including those in work claiming top ups). Add another 12 million state pension claimants, and 14 million under 18’s. One million youth unemployed and 1.7 million at university living on interest bearing loans 34 million working paying for all this. Good luck tacking this Declining birth rate and hostility towards migrants at an all time high and ramping up. Who exactly should pay? 30.3% of all live births in England and Wales were to non-UK-born mothers, the highest proportion since records began Muslim birth rate in uk 2.9 per woman, non muslim 1.4 per woman. 51.4% of Muslims aged 16-64 were employed, compared to the overall population rate of 70.9%. Not hard to see why there is hostility. " Retired, women raising children. If your going to make quote statistics, let's see how many white, black etc etc not conveniently choose data to reassure your bias | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. " No, over 10 million!! But with anything, look at winter fuel allowance apparently the breathing retired are considered poor at 35k. But the breathing under retirement age get no help with fuel bills. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. No, over 10 million!! But with anything, look at winter fuel allowance apparently the breathing retired are considered poor at 35k. But the breathing under retirement age get no help with fuel bills." So £10,000,100? My point still holds true. Why are you so against income tax rises? Because you’d have to pay where a wealth tax you wouldn’t? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. No, over 10 million!! But with anything, look at winter fuel allowance apparently the breathing retired are considered poor at 35k. But the breathing under retirement age get no help with fuel bills." The 35k is far too high, it should be a lot lower. The main issue is too many spongers soaking up the taxes in benefits and those scamming the system whether black white or brown. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up." How all tax thresholds work is that the rate only applies to the amount above the threshold. So if the tax rate was say 2% on wealth above £10 million then someone with £10,000,001 would pay 2p in wealth tax per year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. No, over 10 million!! But with anything, look at winter fuel allowance apparently the breathing retired are considered poor at 35k. But the breathing under retirement age get no help with fuel bills. So £10,000,100? My point still holds true. Why are you so against income tax rises? Because you’d have to pay where a wealth tax you wouldn’t? " Because income is already taxed progressively. Wealth isn't, the wealthiest people are taxed less than PAYE. It will effect me and I'd be grateful | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. I think everyone on the left thinks that disabled people deserve support but could you point out any post that says minimum wage should be increased to around £18 per hour? " I believe it was you who mentioned pensioners being on £35k and didn’t consider that a lot of money. I made a simple calculation based on your statement. I’m not searching for the post, you should remember what you said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. No, over 10 million!! But with anything, look at winter fuel allowance apparently the breathing retired are considered poor at 35k. But the breathing under retirement age get no help with fuel bills. The 35k is far too high, it should be a lot lower. The main issue is too many spongers soaking up the taxes in benefits and those scamming the system whether black white or brown." Your made to believe this. But the system is incredibly rigorous. Their isn't as many as you think. Just because Sandra is at home all day telling you what she earns on benefits, doesn't mean she hasn't got problems. What's worse a few take the piss or the system doesn't exist if you lost your job? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. No, over 10 million!! But with anything, look at winter fuel allowance apparently the breathing retired are considered poor at 35k. But the breathing under retirement age get no help with fuel bills. So £10,000,100? My point still holds true. Why are you so against income tax rises? Because you’d have to pay where a wealth tax you wouldn’t? Because income is already taxed progressively. " And inventing a new tax costs money to implement. Income tax changes by comparison are cheap to implement And fair!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. No, over 10 million!! But with anything, look at winter fuel allowance apparently the breathing retired are considered poor at 35k. But the breathing under retirement age get no help with fuel bills. So £10,000,100? My point still holds true. Why are you so against income tax rises? Because you’d have to pay where a wealth tax you wouldn’t? Because income is already taxed progressively. And inventing a new tax costs money to implement. Income tax changes by comparison are cheap to implement And fair!! " Only fair for people who earn via PAYE. The wealth that's untaxed in this country is ridiculous!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe it was you who mentioned pensioners being on £35k and didn’t consider that a lot of money. I made a simple calculation based on your statement. I’m not searching for the post, you should remember what you said " Not me. It's easy to do a CTLR-F to find stuff. And I'm not sure how that relates to a minimum wage of £18 an hour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe it was you who mentioned pensioners being on £35k and didn’t consider that a lot of money. I made a simple calculation based on your statement. I’m not searching for the post, you should remember what you said Not me. It's easy to do a CTLR-F to find stuff. And I'm not sure how that relates to a minimum wage of £18 an hour. " I just explained. If it’s easy then do the search. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. No, over 10 million!! But with anything, look at winter fuel allowance apparently the breathing retired are considered poor at 35k. But the breathing under retirement age get no help with fuel bills. The 35k is far too high, it should be a lot lower. The main issue is too many spongers soaking up the taxes in benefits and those scamming the system whether black white or brown. Your made to believe this. But the system is incredibly rigorous. Their isn't as many as you think. Just because Sandra is at home all day telling you what she earns on benefits, doesn't mean she hasn't got problems. What's worse a few take the piss or the system doesn't exist if you lost your job?" Ah ha, the crux The system SHOULD be there if you lose your job and it SHOULD cover mortgage interest payments for 12 months, it SHOULD provide food and reasonable expenses for your family but that's it, it's a support not a fecking career | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. No, over 10 million!! But with anything, look at winter fuel allowance apparently the breathing retired are considered poor at 35k. But the breathing under retirement age get no help with fuel bills. The 35k is far too high, it should be a lot lower. The main issue is too many spongers soaking up the taxes in benefits and those scamming the system whether black white or brown. Your made to believe this. But the system is incredibly rigorous. Their isn't as many as you think. Just because Sandra is at home all day telling you what she earns on benefits, doesn't mean she hasn't got problems. What's worse a few take the piss or the system doesn't exist if you lost your job? Ah ha, the crux The system SHOULD be there if you lose your job and it SHOULD cover mortgage interest payments for 12 months, it SHOULD provide food and reasonable expenses for your family but that's it, it's a support not a fecking career " I know no one who chooses to be on the dole as a career. Who chooses £400 a month as a career | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Centre for Social Justice has said sickness benefit claimants are £2,500 a year better off than people working full-time. The economically inactive who claim Universal Credit with average housing benefit and Personal Independence Payments can receive £25,000. That compares with £22,500 that those on the National Living Wage take home after paying their taxes. I can feel a bad back coming on and it’s making me anxious " Send me the link I've Googled this and it's bollocks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. No, over 10 million!! But with anything, look at winter fuel allowance apparently the breathing retired are considered poor at 35k. But the breathing under retirement age get no help with fuel bills. The 35k is far too high, it should be a lot lower. The main issue is too many spongers soaking up the taxes in benefits and those scamming the system whether black white or brown. Your made to believe this. But the system is incredibly rigorous. Their isn't as many as you think. Just because Sandra is at home all day telling you what she earns on benefits, doesn't mean she hasn't got problems. What's worse a few take the piss or the system doesn't exist if you lost your job? Ah ha, the crux The system SHOULD be there if you lose your job and it SHOULD cover mortgage interest payments for 12 months, it SHOULD provide food and reasonable expenses for your family but that's it, it's a support not a fecking career I know no one who chooses to be on the dole as a career. Who chooses £400 a month as a career " Well as it turns out quite a few since there are over 9 mil. on state benefits (excluding pensions). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. No, over 10 million!! But with anything, look at winter fuel allowance apparently the breathing retired are considered poor at 35k. But the breathing under retirement age get no help with fuel bills. The 35k is far too high, it should be a lot lower. The main issue is too many spongers soaking up the taxes in benefits and those scamming the system whether black white or brown. Your made to believe this. But the system is incredibly rigorous. Their isn't as many as you think. Just because Sandra is at home all day telling you what she earns on benefits, doesn't mean she hasn't got problems. What's worse a few take the piss or the system doesn't exist if you lost your job? Ah ha, the crux The system SHOULD be there if you lose your job and it SHOULD cover mortgage interest payments for 12 months, it SHOULD provide food and reasonable expenses for your family but that's it, it's a support not a fecking career I know no one who chooses to be on the dole as a career. Who chooses £400 a month as a career Well as it turns out quite a few since there are over 9 mil. on state benefits (excluding pensions). " That tells me they're ill. Not living the life of Riley. £400 a month!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. No, over 10 million!! But with anything, look at winter fuel allowance apparently the breathing retired are considered poor at 35k. But the breathing under retirement age get no help with fuel bills. The 35k is far too high, it should be a lot lower. The main issue is too many spongers soaking up the taxes in benefits and those scamming the system whether black white or brown. Your made to believe this. But the system is incredibly rigorous. Their isn't as many as you think. Just because Sandra is at home all day telling you what she earns on benefits, doesn't mean she hasn't got problems. What's worse a few take the piss or the system doesn't exist if you lost your job? Ah ha, the crux The system SHOULD be there if you lose your job and it SHOULD cover mortgage interest payments for 12 months, it SHOULD provide food and reasonable expenses for your family but that's it, it's a support not a fecking career I know no one who chooses to be on the dole as a career. Who chooses £400 a month as a career Well as it turns out quite a few since there are over 9 mil. on state benefits (excluding pensions). " Googled this and apparently it's 7.5million people in receipt of UC. Just less than 10%?? Seems a bit high | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just explained. If it’s easy then do the search." Someone said... "If oaps are considered poor at 35k a year why aren't "working people"?" In response you said... "You mentioned £35k per annum. That would put someone on around £18 per hour." All the references to £18 an hour in this thread are just references to what you said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. No, over 10 million!! But with anything, look at winter fuel allowance apparently the breathing retired are considered poor at 35k. But the breathing under retirement age get no help with fuel bills. The 35k is far too high, it should be a lot lower. The main issue is too many spongers soaking up the taxes in benefits and those scamming the system whether black white or brown. Your made to believe this. But the system is incredibly rigorous. Their isn't as many as you think. Just because Sandra is at home all day telling you what she earns on benefits, doesn't mean she hasn't got problems. What's worse a few take the piss or the system doesn't exist if you lost your job? Ah ha, the crux The system SHOULD be there if you lose your job and it SHOULD cover mortgage interest payments for 12 months, it SHOULD provide food and reasonable expenses for your family but that's it, it's a support not a fecking career I know no one who chooses to be on the dole as a career. Who chooses £400 a month as a career " I do….. My son’s mother, my ex. She’s 51 this year, last worked when she was 17. The guy she got with when we split, he never had a job in his life, nor has his brother. Her daughter from that guy, never worked and she’s about 25 So that’s 3 people in just one family. My son’s gf’s family…. Her 2 bothers and one sister never worked a day in their lives. The eldest died during lockdowns aged mid 30s, the other 2 are about 30. 3 of my former sister in-laws never worked a day in their lives and my ex wife never worked when we were together and hasn’t done a days work since. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. No, over 10 million!! But with anything, look at winter fuel allowance apparently the breathing retired are considered poor at 35k. But the breathing under retirement age get no help with fuel bills. The 35k is far too high, it should be a lot lower. The main issue is too many spongers soaking up the taxes in benefits and those scamming the system whether black white or brown. Your made to believe this. But the system is incredibly rigorous. Their isn't as many as you think. Just because Sandra is at home all day telling you what she earns on benefits, doesn't mean she hasn't got problems. What's worse a few take the piss or the system doesn't exist if you lost your job? Ah ha, the crux The system SHOULD be there if you lose your job and it SHOULD cover mortgage interest payments for 12 months, it SHOULD provide food and reasonable expenses for your family but that's it, it's a support not a fecking career I know no one who chooses to be on the dole as a career. Who chooses £400 a month as a career " Lol  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!!" The 24 year old needs to live within their means or get a better job simple really Why should I pay for someone else's kid | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. No, over 10 million!! But with anything, look at winter fuel allowance apparently the breathing retired are considered poor at 35k. But the breathing under retirement age get no help with fuel bills. The 35k is far too high, it should be a lot lower. The main issue is too many spongers soaking up the taxes in benefits and those scamming the system whether black white or brown. Your made to believe this. But the system is incredibly rigorous. Their isn't as many as you think. Just because Sandra is at home all day telling you what she earns on benefits, doesn't mean she hasn't got problems. What's worse a few take the piss or the system doesn't exist if you lost your job? Ah ha, the crux The system SHOULD be there if you lose your job and it SHOULD cover mortgage interest payments for 12 months, it SHOULD provide food and reasonable expenses for your family but that's it, it's a support not a fecking career I know no one who chooses to be on the dole as a career. Who chooses £400 a month as a career I do….. My son’s mother, my ex. She’s 51 this year, last worked when she was 17. The guy she got with when we split, he never had a job in his life, nor has his brother. Her daughter from that guy, never worked and she’s about 25 So that’s 3 people in just one family. My son’s gf’s family…. Her 2 bothers and one sister never worked a day in their lives. The eldest died during lockdowns aged mid 30s, the other 2 are about 30. 3 of my former sister in-laws never worked a day in their lives and my ex wife never worked when we were together and hasn’t done a days work since. " Sorry, what pardon. You choose, £400 month as a wage? What do you live on? Where do you shop? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The ONS reports the number of people on Universal Credit in January 2025 was 7.5 million, the highest level it has been since the introduction of Universal Credit in 2013. This has been increasing since March 2022, when it was 5.5 million. That’s a substantial increase in three years " Seeing as we have our own factual checker. Check how much they earn on UC | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! The 24 year old needs to live within their means or get a better job simple really Why should I pay for someone else's kid " But that kid may save your life if they become a low payed doctor, what's the oap ever done for you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Centre for Social Justice has said sickness benefit claimants are £2,500 a year better off than people working full-time. The economically inactive who claim Universal Credit with average housing benefit and Personal Independence Payments can receive £25,000. That compares with £22,500 that those on the National Living Wage take home after paying their taxes. I can feel a bad back coming on and it’s making me anxious Send me the link I've Googled this and it's bollocks " Came in the news app on my phone. Took a screenshot for you but you block couples so can’t sent it to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Achieving is ultimately about personal choice, drive, and a willingness to take risks. If your aspiration is simply to get by, that is all you will likely achieve, but that is your choice. Those who aim higher who won't sit back and just get by, will show their intent, through discipline and ambition and tend to rise above the baseline. What holds so many people back isn’t social injustices, it is a lack of consistency, focus, and ambition. These traits aren’t given to only the lucky, they are personal choices, that need to be repeated daily. It is hard work to be consistent and successful, if it was easy the socialists would be doing it too... "That is luck, if you are born to the right family, with an interest in you, with money or even born within a rich boarder. That's all luck!!! We are lucky we we're born on this rock!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. No, over 10 million!! But with anything, look at winter fuel allowance apparently the breathing retired are considered poor at 35k. But the breathing under retirement age get no help with fuel bills. The 35k is far too high, it should be a lot lower. The main issue is too many spongers soaking up the taxes in benefits and those scamming the system whether black white or brown. Your made to believe this. But the system is incredibly rigorous. Their isn't as many as you think. Just because Sandra is at home all day telling you what she earns on benefits, doesn't mean she hasn't got problems. What's worse a few take the piss or the system doesn't exist if you lost your job? Ah ha, the crux The system SHOULD be there if you lose your job and it SHOULD cover mortgage interest payments for 12 months, it SHOULD provide food and reasonable expenses for your family but that's it, it's a support not a fecking career I know no one who chooses to be on the dole as a career. Who chooses £400 a month as a career I do….. My son’s mother, my ex. She’s 51 this year, last worked when she was 17. The guy she got with when we split, he never had a job in his life, nor has his brother. Her daughter from that guy, never worked and she’s about 25 So that’s 3 people in just one family. My son’s gf’s family…. Her 2 bothers and one sister never worked a day in their lives. The eldest died during lockdowns aged mid 30s, the other 2 are about 30. 3 of my former sister in-laws never worked a day in their lives and my ex wife never worked when we were together and hasn’t done a days work since. Sorry, what pardon. You choose, £400 month as a wage? What do you live on? Where do you shop?" I know people whose career is being on benefits is what I was saying. And it’s not £400 a month when you add in all the extras such as housing benefits etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it seems those who usually post comments indicating left of centre political beliefs are quite happy with people on benefits getting more money than those in full time work. And think benefits should be increased And they want everyone to get a pay rise with minimum wage to be around £18 per hour. And they want other peoples taxes to go up to pay for it all. Only if you're worth it over 10 million Well I’m not worth 10 million so can I notify HMRC that I’m now exempt from all taxes? For what? No one is exempt of participating in making the country better. All we're asking is that wealth be taxed slightly higher Surely the fairest way would be to put 1% on basic rate of income tax, 2% on the higher rate 3% on the highest rate? If everyone benefits, everyone should contribute. That's income. Income is as you've pointed out already progressively taxed. Wealth isn't, Rishi Sunak is taxed less on his wealth than a nurse does You missed my main point. Fairness. A wealth tax will always be selective. The figure of 10m has been mentioned. So someone with £9.99m pays zero? When someone with £10 mill pays £40k? So ends up with less money? How is that fair? Income tax is the fairest of all taxes. If everyone benefits from public spending, everyone should contribute. And anyone who claims to be a socialist should be happy to cough up. No, over 10 million!! But with anything, look at winter fuel allowance apparently the breathing retired are considered poor at 35k. But the breathing under retirement age get no help with fuel bills. The 35k is far too high, it should be a lot lower. The main issue is too many spongers soaking up the taxes in benefits and those scamming the system whether black white or brown. Your made to believe this. But the system is incredibly rigorous. Their isn't as many as you think. Just because Sandra is at home all day telling you what she earns on benefits, doesn't mean she hasn't got problems. What's worse a few take the piss or the system doesn't exist if you lost your job? Ah ha, the crux The system SHOULD be there if you lose your job and it SHOULD cover mortgage interest payments for 12 months, it SHOULD provide food and reasonable expenses for your family but that's it, it's a support not a fecking career I know no one who chooses to be on the dole as a career. Who chooses £400 a month as a career I do….. My son’s mother, my ex. She’s 51 this year, last worked when she was 17. The guy she got with when we split, he never had a job in his life, nor has his brother. Her daughter from that guy, never worked and she’s about 25 So that’s 3 people in just one family. My son’s gf’s family…. Her 2 bothers and one sister never worked a day in their lives. The eldest died during lockdowns aged mid 30s, the other 2 are about 30. 3 of my former sister in-laws never worked a day in their lives and my ex wife never worked when we were together and hasn’t done a days work since. Sorry, what pardon. You choose, £400 month as a wage? What do you live on? Where do you shop? I know people whose career is being on benefits is what I was saying. And it’s not £400 a month when you add in all the extras such as housing benefits etc " No, you are wrong here. To receive UC you have to prove that you are looking for work. This is what I mean by meaningful work. Because, people can go and pretend to look for work. They can accept work then get sacked (if you quit you don't get state support for 6 months) It's much better to, develop the person find them meaningful employment they'll be far more likely to stick at the job Than this constant demonization we've done since, well, I'm 40 I'm blaming the old milk snatcher. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Centre for Social Justice has said sickness benefit claimants are £2,500 a year better off than people working full-time. The economically inactive who claim Universal Credit with average housing benefit and Personal Independence Payments can receive £25,000. That compares with £22,500 that those on the National Living Wage take home after paying their taxes. I can feel a bad back coming on and it’s making me anxious Send me the link I've Googled this and it's bollocks Came in the news app on my phone. Took a screenshot for you but you block couples so can’t sent it to you. " It's a Facebook screenshot Shame on him!! It's a made up news story | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Centre for Social Justice has said sickness benefit claimants are £2,500 a year better off than people working full-time. The economically inactive who claim Universal Credit with average housing benefit and Personal Independence Payments can receive £25,000. That compares with £22,500 that those on the National Living Wage take home after paying their taxes. I can feel a bad back coming on and it’s making me anxious Send me the link I've Googled this and it's bollocks Came in the news app on my phone. Took a screenshot for you but you block couples so can’t sent it to you. It's a Facebook screenshot Shame on him!! It's a made up news story " It’s from the sun, shame on you for not being able to read | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mate your not!!" Happy to send anyone the screenshot to prove this is not from Facebook. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mate your not!! Happy to send anyone the screenshot to prove this is not from Facebook. " It's from an old article from the Sun on Facebook. By a discredited journalist, for making stuff up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mate your not!! Happy to send anyone the screenshot to prove this is not from Facebook. It's from an old article from the Sun on Facebook. By a discredited journalist, for making stuff up " So not from facebook then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mate your not!! Happy to send anyone the screenshot to prove this is not from Facebook. It's from an old article from the Sun on Facebook. By a discredited journalist, for making stuff up So not from facebook then " Your screen shot is from davebu | |||
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 (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your first screenshot is from Facebook " Nope, it’s just from lower down the newsfeed so didn’t show the header | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your first screenshot is from Facebook Nope, it’s just from lower down the newsfeed so didn’t show the header " Ok, let's say I accept that Is he as a journalist discredited? Is the story over 10 years old? Even then wrong! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! The 24 year old needs to live within their means or get a better job simple really Why should I pay for someone else's kid But that kid may save your life if they become a low payed doctor, what's the oap ever done for you?" Bump to an actual point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your first screenshot is from Facebook Nope, it’s just from lower down the newsfeed so didn’t show the header Ok, let's say I accept that Is he as a journalist discredited? Is the story over 10 years old? Even then wrong!" Nope, it had the date on it. I’m having to say nope a lot here. Why ask for the screenshot if you’re not even going to look at it and then just come on here and lie about it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've put it all out there. People can look it up themselves and decide " Kemi is the leader of the Conservative Party in the story which is clearly shown in the screenshot (as is the date) So how can it possibly be 10 years old? Is admitting you made a mistake so hard? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!!" Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!!" I'm glad you've taken a personal approach 
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've put it all out there. People can look it up themselves and decide Kemi is the leader of the Conservative Party in the story which is clearly shown in the screenshot (as is the date) So how can it possibly be 10 years old? Is admitting you made a mistake so hard? " Indeed, that's why it's dubious. Why is the Sun according to your screenshot still employing a discredited journalist?? Doesn't speak well for them either way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
"you do come across as a very angry and bitter person towards old people,why is that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
you do come across as a very angry and bitter person towards old people,why is that?"It's nothing to do with their age!!! What I dislike is and I've said it before here. They've benefits from a post world war order, a paternalistic state but at every turn they voted to pull the up the ladder and turn the world back into that mythical war torn era they heard at Nana's boosm | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
"It's like you are saying anyone who is over 65 and has some money is a tory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
It's like you are saying anyone who is over 65 and has some money is a tory."Well,....as a cohort polls would show that to be correct, they tend to skew more conserr. But I accept it's nuanced | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People fetishise the old because they think they were the war generation. Truth is most of the actual war generation are dead. We owe nothing to these grey beards only scissors " Disillusioned envy seems to be a common thread among socialists, always looking backward with resentment rather than forward with purpose. Must be exhausting. Good luck, genuinely. I hope things pick up for you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
you do come across as a very angry and bitter person towards old people,why is that?
It's nothing to do with their age!!!
What I dislike is and I've said it before here. They've benefits from a post world war order, a paternalistic state but at every turn they voted to pull the up the ladder and turn the world back into that mythical war torn era they heard at Nana's boosm "like I said just an angry and bitter man,boo hoo the oldies had it better | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
It's like you are saying anyone who is over 65 and has some money is a tory.
Well,....as a cohort polls would show that to be correct, they tend to skew more conserr. But I accept it's nuanced "Go figure . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People fetishise the old because they think they were the war generation. Truth is most of the actual war generation are dead. We owe nothing to these grey beards only scissors Disillusioned envy seems to be a common thread among socialists, always looking backward with resentment rather than forward with purpose. Must be exhausting. Good luck, genuinely. I hope things pick up for you "Blimey the man that thinks breath at 66 is exceptional, seems to want all the benefits he's ever had at non of the cost. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
you do come across as a very angry and bitter person towards old people,why is that?
It's nothing to do with their age!!!
What I dislike is and I've said it before here. They've benefits from a post world war order, a paternalistic state but at every turn they voted to pull the up the ladder and turn the world back into that mythical war torn era they heard at Nana's boosm like I said just an angry and bitter man,boo hoo the oldies had it better"Read on darling Theirs no boo hoo! I'm just pointing out inconvenience truths. At no other point in history (on record) has times been worse. The levels of inequality is dickensian. We have more food banks than McDonald's We had actual warm banks last winter Yet your conditioned to think "if we make it through Pip" next year's going to be better. Except it isn't. The rich will get ever richer and you will become ever poorer. Sad really | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
you do come across as a very angry and bitter person towards old people,why is that?
It's nothing to do with their age!!!
What I dislike is and I've said it before here. They've benefits from a post world war order, a paternalistic state but at every turn they voted to pull the up the ladder and turn the world back into that mythical war torn era they heard at Nana's boosm like I said just an angry and bitter man,boo hoo the oldies had it better
Read on darling
Theirs no boo hoo!
I'm just pointing out inconvenience truths.
At no other point in history (on record) has times been worse.
The levels of inequality is dickensian.
We have more food banks than McDonald's
We had actual warm banks last winter
Yet your conditioned to think "if we make it through Pip" next year's going to be better.
Except it isn't.
The rich will get ever richer and you will become ever poorer.
Sad really "Maybe you'd be more at home in a less capitalist society, maybe try north Korea see how much better off you'd be without the billionaires suffocating you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
you do come across as a very angry and bitter person towards old people,why is that?
It's nothing to do with their age!!!
What I dislike is and I've said it before here. They've benefits from a post world war order, a paternalistic state but at every turn they voted to pull the up the ladder and turn the world back into that mythical war torn era they heard at Nana's boosm like I said just an angry and bitter man,boo hoo the oldies had it better
Read on darling
Theirs no boo hoo!
I'm just pointing out inconvenience truths.
At no other point in history (on record) has times been worse.
The levels of inequality is dickensian.
We have more food banks than McDonald's
We had actual warm banks last winter
Yet your conditioned to think "if we make it through Pip" next year's going to be better.
Except it isn't.
The rich will get ever richer and you will become ever poorer.
Sad really
Maybe you'd be more at home in a less capitalist society, maybe try north Korea see how much better off you'd be without the billionaires suffocating you "Could it possibly be you need to stretch your mind!? I mean hey those people are payed a lot to convince you of your mind set. Being a good capitalist, those columnists got to be worth it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
you do come across as a very angry and bitter person towards old people,why is that?
It's nothing to do with their age!!!
What I dislike is and I've said it before here. They've benefits from a post world war order, a paternalistic state but at every turn they voted to pull the up the ladder and turn the world back into that mythical war torn era they heard at Nana's boosm like I said just an angry and bitter man,boo hoo the oldies had it better
Read on darling
Theirs no boo hoo!
I'm just pointing out inconvenience truths.
At no other point in history (on record) has times been worse.
The levels of inequality is dickensian.
We have more food banks than McDonald's
We had actual warm banks last winter
Yet your conditioned to think "if we make it through Pip" next year's going to be better.
Except it isn't.
The rich will get ever richer and you will become ever poorer.
Sad really
Maybe you'd be more at home in a less capitalist society, maybe try north Korea see how much better off you'd be without the billionaires suffocating you "Stop feeding him. They live off this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
you do come across as a very angry and bitter person towards old people,why is that?
It's nothing to do with their age!!!
What I dislike is and I've said it before here. They've benefits from a post world war order, a paternalistic state but at every turn they voted to pull the up the ladder and turn the world back into that mythical war torn era they heard at Nana's boosm like I said just an angry and bitter man,boo hoo the oldies had it better
Read on darling
Theirs no boo hoo!
I'm just pointing out inconvenience truths.
At no other point in history (on record) has times been worse.
The levels of inequality is dickensian.
We have more food banks than McDonald's
We had actual warm banks last winter
Yet your conditioned to think "if we make it through Pip" next year's going to be better.
Except it isn't.
The rich will get ever richer and you will become ever poorer.
Sad really
Maybe you'd be more at home in a less capitalist society, maybe try north Korea see how much better off you'd be without the billionaires suffocating you
Stop feeding him.
They live off this."Tell me what do "they" love off bro? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!!" State pension is £230.25p a week so just under £12k how do you get from that to £35k that's a big jump. And a 24 year old on minimum wage at £12.21 doing only a 40 hour week can earn £25,300 pre tax. And gets £1300 in child benefits so would get about half there Tax back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
you do come across as a very angry and bitter person towards old people,why is that?
It's nothing to do with their age!!!
What I dislike is and I've said it before here. They've benefits from a post world war order, a paternalistic state but at every turn they voted to pull the up the ladder and turn the world back into that mythical war torn era they heard at Nana's boosm like I said just an angry and bitter man,boo hoo the oldies had it better
Read on darling
Theirs no boo hoo!
I'm just pointing out inconvenience truths.
At no other point in history (on record) has times been worse.
The levels of inequality is dickensian.
We have more food banks than McDonald's
We had actual warm banks last winter
Yet your conditioned to think "if we make it through Pip" next year's going to be better.
Except it isn't.
The rich will get ever richer and you will become ever poorer.
Sad really
Maybe you'd be more at home in a less capitalist society, maybe try north Korea see how much better off you'd be without the billionaires suffocating you
Could it possibly be you need to stretch your mind!?
I mean hey those people are payed a lot to convince you of your mind set.
Being a good capitalist, those columnists got to be worth it.
"Would you mind trying again that was incomprehensible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
you do come across as a very angry and bitter person towards old people,why is that?
It's nothing to do with their age!!!
What I dislike is and I've said it before here. They've benefits from a post world war order, a paternalistic state but at every turn they voted to pull the up the ladder and turn the world back into that mythical war torn era they heard at Nana's boosm like I said just an angry and bitter man,boo hoo the oldies had it better
Read on darling
Theirs no boo hoo!
I'm just pointing out inconvenience truths.
At no other point in history (on record) has times been worse.
The levels of inequality is dickensian.
We have more food banks than McDonald's
We had actual warm banks last winter
Yet your conditioned to think "if we make it through Pip" next year's going to be better.
Except it isn't.
The rich will get ever richer and you will become ever poorer.
Sad really
Maybe you'd be more at home in a less capitalist society, maybe try north Korea see how much better off you'd be without the billionaires suffocating you
Stop feeding him.
They live off this."What this gentlemen is saying that the rich are in the process of buying up our assets the most obvious one is housing. Imagine housing stock, the lower in the middle class are now struggling to buy accommodation in certain parts of the country, the rise in HMO,s and rental accommodation. Land is also being brought up by companies like McDonalds who are one of the biggest land owners in the world. Now when they own most of the assets what happens to us. We will have digital money, ID cards, living in expensive rental accommodation or an HMO, the rich will then pay us to live we will depend on them, it is then you will realise who the asset has always been you, me us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I blame business they do not pay enough so employees have to claim benefits usually Housing Benefits so here we are paying for employers." The government sets the minimum wage, so a single person living alone should be able to live on that. £1750 a month take home roughly. I’d say that’s a tough ask in a big city with high rent charges. But easy for someone living at home with parents. For a couple living together with two incomes and no kids I’d say that’s fairly easy to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
you do come across as a very angry and bitter person towards old people,why is that?
It's nothing to do with their age!!!
What I dislike is and I've said it before here. They've benefits from a post world war order, a paternalistic state but at every turn they voted to pull the up the ladder and turn the world back into that mythical war torn era they heard at Nana's boosm like I said just an angry and bitter man,boo hoo the oldies had it better
Read on darling
Theirs no boo hoo!
I'm just pointing out inconvenience truths.
At no other point in history (on record) has times been worse.
The levels of inequality is dickensian.
We have more food banks than McDonald's
We had actual warm banks last winter
Yet your conditioned to think "if we make it through Pip" next year's going to be better.
Except it isn't.
The rich will get ever richer and you will become ever poorer.
Sad really
Maybe you'd be more at home in a less capitalist society, maybe try north Korea see how much better off you'd be without the billionaires suffocating you
Stop feeding him.
They live off this.
What this gentlemen is saying that the rich are in the process of buying up our assets the most obvious one is housing.
Imagine housing stock, the lower in the middle class are now struggling to buy accommodation in certain parts of the country, the rise in HMO,s and rental accommodation.
Land is also being brought up by companies like McDonalds who are one of the biggest land owners in the world.
Now when they own most of the assets what happens to us.
We will have digital money, ID cards, living in expensive rental accommodation or an HMO, the rich will then pay us to live we will depend on them, it is then you will realise who the asset has always been you, me us."The flaw in your silly argument is if they don't pay "us" who will eat the burgers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I blame business they do not pay enough so employees have to claim benefits usually Housing Benefits so here we are paying for employers. The government sets the minimum wage, so a single person living alone should be able to live on that. £1750 a month take home roughly. I’d say that’s a tough ask in a big city with high rent charges. But easy for someone living at home with parents. For a couple living together with two incomes and no kids I’d say that’s fairly easy to do. " You have brought to light two of my points, young adults who are working, but cannot buy a property so have to live with their parents. Was this the case when you were that age? The rich buying all the assets, in cities and then raising the rent. So you see what's happening . A single person needs a minimum of 28,000, and a couple with no children need a combined wage of 40,000, that is using the minimum income calculator which is available on line, one puts in their details and it will tell a person if they are earning enough due to their circumstances. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
you do come across as a very angry and bitter person towards old people,why is that?
It's nothing to do with their age!!!
What I dislike is and I've said it before here. They've benefits from a post world war order, a paternalistic state but at every turn they voted to pull the up the ladder and turn the world back into that mythical war torn era they heard at Nana's boosm like I said just an angry and bitter man,boo hoo the oldies had it better
Read on darling
Theirs no boo hoo!
I'm just pointing out inconvenience truths.
At no other point in history (on record) has times been worse.
The levels of inequality is dickensian.
We have more food banks than McDonald's
We had actual warm banks last winter
Yet your conditioned to think "if we make it through Pip" next year's going to be better.
Except it isn't.
The rich will get ever richer and you will become ever poorer.
Sad really
Maybe you'd be more at home in a less capitalist society, maybe try north Korea see how much better off you'd be without the billionaires suffocating you
Stop feeding him.
They live off this.
What this gentlemen is saying that the rich are in the process of buying up our assets the most obvious one is housing.
Imagine housing stock, the lower in the middle class are now struggling to buy accommodation in certain parts of the country, the rise in HMO,s and rental accommodation.
Land is also being brought up by companies like McDonalds who are one of the biggest land owners in the world.
Now when they own most of the assets what happens to us.
We will have digital money, ID cards, living in expensive rental accommodation or an HMO, the rich will then pay us to live we will depend on them, it is then you will realise who the asset has always been you, me us.
The flaw in your silly argument is if they don't pay "us" who will eat the burgers "Think about what you brought your home for, what it costs now, and who would be able to buy it at that price. McDonalds major business model is to buy land if you were not aware of this then well who is the silly one. When we have no assets, then who owns said assets. People cannot afford a home now not next year but now. But as long as people like yourselves think as you do then we are all in stum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
you do come across as a very angry and bitter person towards old people,why is that?
It's nothing to do with their age!!!
What I dislike is and I've said it before here. They've benefits from a post world war order, a paternalistic state but at every turn they voted to pull the up the ladder and turn the world back into that mythical war torn era they heard at Nana's boosm like I said just an angry and bitter man,boo hoo the oldies had it better
Read on darling
Theirs no boo hoo!
I'm just pointing out inconvenience truths.
At no other point in history (on record) has times been worse.
The levels of inequality is dickensian.
We have more food banks than McDonald's
We had actual warm banks last winter
Yet your conditioned to think "if we make it through Pip" next year's going to be better.
Except it isn't.
The rich will get ever richer and you will become ever poorer.
Sad really
Maybe you'd be more at home in a less capitalist society, maybe try north Korea see how much better off you'd be without the billionaires suffocating you
Stop feeding him.
They live off this.
What this gentlemen is saying that the rich are in the process of buying up our assets the most obvious one is housing.
Imagine housing stock, the lower in the middle class are now struggling to buy accommodation in certain parts of the country, the rise in HMO,s and rental accommodation.
Land is also being brought up by companies like McDonalds who are one of the biggest land owners in the world.
Now when they own most of the assets what happens to us.
We will have digital money, ID cards, living in expensive rental accommodation or an HMO, the rich will then pay us to live we will depend on them, it is then you will realise who the asset has always been you, me us.
The flaw in your silly argument is if they don't pay "us" who will eat the burgers
Think about what you brought your home for, what it costs now, and who would be able to buy it at that price.
McDonalds major business model is to buy land if you were not aware of this then well who is the silly one.
When we have no assets, then who owns said assets.
People cannot afford a home now not next year but now.
But as long as people like yourselves think as you do then we are all in stum."You think houses are priced as they are because of McDonalds? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
you do come across as a very angry and bitter person towards old people,why is that?
It's nothing to do with their age!!!
What I dislike is and I've said it before here. They've benefits from a post world war order, a paternalistic state but at every turn they voted to pull the up the ladder and turn the world back into that mythical war torn era they heard at Nana's boosm like I said just an angry and bitter man,boo hoo the oldies had it better
Read on darling
Theirs no boo hoo!
I'm just pointing out inconvenience truths.
At no other point in history (on record) has times been worse.
The levels of inequality is dickensian.
We have more food banks than McDonald's
We had actual warm banks last winter
Yet your conditioned to think "if we make it through Pip" next year's going to be better.
Except it isn't.
The rich will get ever richer and you will become ever poorer.
Sad really
Maybe you'd be more at home in a less capitalist society, maybe try north Korea see how much better off you'd be without the billionaires suffocating you
Stop feeding him.
They live off this.
What this gentlemen is saying that the rich are in the process of buying up our assets the most obvious one is housing.
Imagine housing stock, the lower in the middle class are now struggling to buy accommodation in certain parts of the country, the rise in HMO,s and rental accommodation.
Land is also being brought up by companies like McDonalds who are one of the biggest land owners in the world.
Now when they own most of the assets what happens to us.
We will have digital money, ID cards, living in expensive rental accommodation or an HMO, the rich will then pay us to live we will depend on them, it is then you will realise who the asset has always been you, me us.
The flaw in your silly argument is if they don't pay "us" who will eat the burgers
Think about what you brought your home for, what it costs now, and who would be able to buy it at that price.
McDonalds major business model is to buy land if you were not aware of this then well who is the silly one.
When we have no assets, then who owns said assets.
People cannot afford a home now not next year but now.
But as long as people like yourselves think as you do then we are all in stum.
You think houses are priced as they are because of McDonalds?"It's a secret ploy if you can't afford a house you'll eat more McDonald's burgers. Perfect logic  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
you do come across as a very angry and bitter person towards old people,why is that?
It's nothing to do with their age!!!
What I dislike is and I've said it before here. They've benefits from a post world war order, a paternalistic state but at every turn they voted to pull the up the ladder and turn the world back into that mythical war torn era they heard at Nana's boosm like I said just an angry and bitter man,boo hoo the oldies had it better
Read on darling
Theirs no boo hoo!
I'm just pointing out inconvenience truths.
At no other point in history (on record) has times been worse.
The levels of inequality is dickensian.
We have more food banks than McDonald's
We had actual warm banks last winter
Yet your conditioned to think "if we make it through Pip" next year's going to be better.
Except it isn't.
The rich will get ever richer and you will become ever poorer.
Sad really
Maybe you'd be more at home in a less capitalist society, maybe try north Korea see how much better off you'd be without the billionaires suffocating you
Stop feeding him.
They live off this.
What this gentlemen is saying that the rich are in the process of buying up our assets the most obvious one is housing.
Imagine housing stock, the lower in the middle class are now struggling to buy accommodation in certain parts of the country, the rise in HMO,s and rental accommodation.
Land is also being brought up by companies like McDonalds who are one of the biggest land owners in the world.
Now when they own most of the assets what happens to us.
We will have digital money, ID cards, living in expensive rental accommodation or an HMO, the rich will then pay us to live we will depend on them, it is then you will realise who the asset has always been you, me us.
The flaw in your silly argument is if they don't pay "us" who will eat the burgers
Think about what you brought your home for, what it costs now, and who would be able to buy it at that price.
McDonalds major business model is to buy land if you were not aware of this then well who is the silly one.
When we have no assets, then who owns said assets.
People cannot afford a home now not next year but now.
But as long as people like yourselves think as you do then we are all in stum.
You think houses are priced as they are because of McDonalds?"McDonalds buy land, the burgers are a franchise. Housing is priced by demand hence all homes do not cost the same in different parts of the country. The demand is driven by those who can afford the cost. And those who afford land prices drive up all costs involved with building and selling so yeh in a nutshell McDondalds influences land and house prices all over the world and they are just one in many. Not bad from a diner in midwest USA to biggest one of land owners in the world. Then again if you believe McDonalds makes money from selling burgers to the tune of 264.92 billion, then well I have no words. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
you do come across as a very angry and bitter person towards old people,why is that?
It's nothing to do with their age!!!
What I dislike is and I've said it before here. They've benefits from a post world war order, a paternalistic state but at every turn they voted to pull the up the ladder and turn the world back into that mythical war torn era they heard at Nana's boosm like I said just an angry and bitter man,boo hoo the oldies had it better
Read on darling
Theirs no boo hoo!
I'm just pointing out inconvenience truths.
At no other point in history (on record) has times been worse.
The levels of inequality is dickensian.
We have more food banks than McDonald's
We had actual warm banks last winter
Yet your conditioned to think "if we make it through Pip" next year's going to be better.
Except it isn't.
The rich will get ever richer and you will become ever poorer.
Sad really
Maybe you'd be more at home in a less capitalist society, maybe try north Korea see how much better off you'd be without the billionaires suffocating you
Stop feeding him.
They live off this.
What this gentlemen is saying that the rich are in the process of buying up our assets the most obvious one is housing.
Imagine housing stock, the lower in the middle class are now struggling to buy accommodation in certain parts of the country, the rise in HMO,s and rental accommodation.
Land is also being brought up by companies like McDonalds who are one of the biggest land owners in the world.
Now when they own most of the assets what happens to us.
We will have digital money, ID cards, living in expensive rental accommodation or an HMO, the rich will then pay us to live we will depend on them, it is then you will realise who the asset has always been you, me us.
The flaw in your silly argument is if they don't pay "us" who will eat the burgers
Think about what you brought your home for, what it costs now, and who would be able to buy it at that price.
McDonalds major business model is to buy land if you were not aware of this then well who is the silly one.
When we have no assets, then who owns said assets.
People cannot afford a home now not next year but now.
But as long as people like yourselves think as you do then we are all in stum.
You think houses are priced as they are because of McDonalds?
It's a secret ploy if you can't afford a house you'll eat more McDonald's burgers. Perfect logic "McDonalds are in fact 3 companies tied to one name. One buys land, the other decides what is going to be built on said land, and controls Francises And the last is retail selling or renting business premises | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oaps are deemed poor at 35k. Despite being the richest amongst us. Meanwhile a 24 year old, earning 25k working full time with 6 year old misses meals, you get 0 help!! Why should an OAP be shamed for having money if they have worked all their lives saved,payed into a pension and payed taxes . Why should the 24 year old be entitled to anything anymore than anyone else? Fair play to anyone who works hard and pays their way. My sympathy to everyone who tries,life is so expensive today so youngsters just trying to survive is difficult,but once again why should they be entitled more than say a 65 year old struggling to heat their house to stay alive? I'm confused by your post,in fact most of your posts confuse me!! I'm glad you've taken a personal approach
Old people have rinsed the system since they were born, and they don't even know how good they had it.
They've voted at every turn to make life worse for the generations that followed;
Maggie and all her legacy bills, austerity, Brexit, Johnson
All brought to you by the right wing press and champions, all wrong most in tax havens or in the house of lords. Rinsing your ilk and here they are parroting every word, to make themselves poorer all over again!
That 24 year old wasn't asked to be born, you as one of the rinsers have a duty to help!! Unless your too busy milking that pension?
you do come across as a very angry and bitter person towards old people,why is that?
It's nothing to do with their age!!!
What I dislike is and I've said it before here. They've benefits from a post world war order, a paternalistic state but at every turn they voted to pull the up the ladder and turn the world back into that mythical war torn era they heard at Nana's boosm like I said just an angry and bitter man,boo hoo the oldies had it better
Read on darling
Theirs no boo hoo!
I'm just pointing out inconvenience truths.
At no other point in history (on record) has times been worse.
The levels of inequality is dickensian.
We have more food banks than McDonald's
We had actual warm banks last winter
Yet your conditioned to think "if we make it through Pip" next year's going to be better.
Except it isn't.
The rich will get ever richer and you will become ever poorer.
Sad really
Maybe you'd be more at home in a less capitalist society, maybe try north Korea see how much better off you'd be without the billionaires suffocating you
Stop feeding him.
They live off this.
What this gentlemen is saying that the rich are in the process of buying up our assets the most obvious one is housing.
Imagine housing stock, the lower in the middle class are now struggling to buy accommodation in certain parts of the country, the rise in HMO,s and rental accommodation.
Land is also being brought up by companies like McDonalds who are one of the biggest land owners in the world.
Now when they own most of the assets what happens to us.
We will have digital money, ID cards, living in expensive rental accommodation or an HMO, the rich will then pay us to live we will depend on them, it is then you will realise who the asset has always been you, me us.
The flaw in your silly argument is if they don't pay "us" who will eat the burgers
Think about what you brought your home for, what it costs now, and who would be able to buy it at that price.
McDonalds major business model is to buy land if you were not aware of this then well who is the silly one.
When we have no assets, then who owns said assets.
People cannot afford a home now not next year but now.
But as long as people like yourselves think as you do then we are all in stum.
You think houses are priced as they are because of McDonalds?
McDonalds buy land, the burgers are a franchise.
Housing is priced by demand hence all homes do not cost the same in different parts of the country.
The demand is driven by those who can afford the cost.
And those who afford land prices drive up all costs involved with building and selling so yeh in a nutshell McDondalds influences land and house prices all over the world and they are just one in many.
Not bad from a diner in midwest USA to biggest one of land owners in the world.
Then again if you believe McDonalds makes money from selling burgers to the tune of 264.92 billion, then well I have no words."What % of UK land does McDonalds own? I don’t know the answer to this question but it seems like you have looked into it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I blame business they do not pay enough so employees have to claim benefits usually Housing Benefits so here we are paying for employers. The government sets the minimum wage, so a single person living alone should be able to live on that. £1750 a month take home roughly. I’d say that’s a tough ask in a big city with high rent charges. But easy for someone living at home with parents. For a couple living together with two incomes and no kids I’d say that’s fairly easy to do. You have brought to light two of my points, young adults who are working, but cannot buy a property so have to live with their parents. Was this the case when you were that age? The rich buying all the assets, in cities and then raising the rent. So you see what's happening . A single person needs a minimum of 28,000, and a couple with no children need a combined wage of 40,000, that is using the minimum income calculator which is available on line, one puts in their details and it will tell a person if they are earning enough due to their circumstances." There’s other issues here, hidden in the undergrowth…. Typical family has 2 kids and lives in a 3 bed house. The kids want independence so wanna get their own place. A family that was taking up on residence is now taking up 3. Eventually the kids cohabit with partners who also fled the same 3 bed family home so availability of this type of accommodation is constantly recycling. But both set of parents are still occupying their 3 bed houses. It’s their homes, why should they leave? And I agree. The kids might split and need to come home again till they get in their feet. Have grandkids sleep over. Or they just want to exercise their human rights to live on their own land in their own house. All reasonable arguments, but they are still hogging the two extra bedrooms. If it was benefit funded, the so called bedroom tax incentivises them to downscale, but when you own there’s no incentive. When I was a kid, nobody I knew got their own place until they moved in with a partner. But now it’s almost expected. This as well as the overall lack of building has made renting incredibly expensive and that’s what is killing the ability to live on minimum wage. It’s not a case of employers not paying enough, its the cost of living has increased faster than wages. Fuel costs impact everything making it more expensive and that to a great extent is affected by global markets. But also taxation. Energy companies pay 78% tax. Cut that tax by 20% and cut the fuel cap by 20%. That would instantly make every household better off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I blame business they do not pay enough so employees have to claim benefits usually Housing Benefits so here we are paying for employers. The government sets the minimum wage, so a single person living alone should be able to live on that. £1750 a month take home roughly. I’d say that’s a tough ask in a big city with high rent charges. But easy for someone living at home with parents. For a couple living together with two incomes and no kids I’d say that’s fairly easy to do. You have brought to light two of my points, young adults who are working, but cannot buy a property so have to live with their parents. Was this the case when you were that age? The rich buying all the assets, in cities and then raising the rent. So you see what's happening . A single person needs a minimum of 28,000, and a couple with no children need a combined wage of 40,000, that is using the minimum income calculator which is available on line, one puts in their details and it will tell a person if they are earning enough due to their circumstances. There’s other issues here, hidden in the undergrowth…. Typical family has 2 kids and lives in a 3 bed house. The kids want independence so wanna get their own place. A family that was taking up on residence is now taking up 3. Eventually the kids cohabit with partners who also fled the same 3 bed family home so availability of this type of accommodation is constantly recycling. But both set of parents are still occupying their 3 bed houses. It’s their homes, why should they leave? And I agree. The kids might split and need to come home again till they get in their feet. Have grandkids sleep over. Or they just want to exercise their human rights to live on their own land in their own house. All reasonable arguments, but they are still hogging the two extra bedrooms. If it was benefit funded, the so called bedroom tax incentivises them to downscale, but when you own there’s no incentive. When I was a kid, nobody I knew got their own place until they moved in with a partner. But now it’s almost expected. This as well as the overall lack of building has made renting incredibly expensive and that’s what is killing the ability to live on minimum wage. It’s not a case of employers not paying enough, its the cost of living has increased faster than wages. Fuel costs impact everything making it more expensive and that to a great extent is affected by global markets. But also taxation. Energy companies pay 78% tax. Cut that tax by 20% and cut the fuel cap by 20%. That would instantly make every household better off. " When I was employed I got a raise in line with the cost of living every year, do people still get this yearly raise? I believe this raise is not so popular with employers anymore, which naturally lead to a rise in working people claiming benefits not the ones we think of but housing benefit, and due to that PiP comes into play. If the employer paid a decent wage and ignored the national living wage (which is in fact a tool to keep wages low) then we would pay less in benefits. I would like to think that everyday prices would return to normal levels whatever normal is these days, but people of a certain age know they would they have been squeezed before and are going through it again. Things are so bad and people are looking for a way out, they are considering voting reform a racists political LTD company. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When I was employed I got a raise in line with the cost of living every year, do people still get this yearly raise? I believe this raise is not so popular with employers anymore, which naturally lead to a rise in working people claiming benefits not the ones we think of but housing benefit, and due to that PiP comes into play. If the employer paid a decent wage and ignored the national living wage (which is in fact a tool to keep wages low) then we would pay less in benefits. I would like to think that everyday prices would return to normal levels whatever normal is these days, but people of a certain age know they would they have been squeezed before and are going through it again. " I’d be interested to know how many companies gave lower pay rises to staff after the introduction of the minimum wage and progressively brought their pay scale in line with minimum wage when it would have previously been higher. The minimum wage is definitely a double edged sword, some have gained, some have lost. And now we have this government defined hourly rate that an awful lot of employers set their pay rate at, because they can. I don’t see your connection between housing benefit and PIP though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Exactly the point the French are making re channel crossings. The UK benefits system is too generous and a magnet for migrants, legal or otherwise. Likewise, overly high welfare benefits are a disincentive to work. In a nutshell, we are living beyond our means as a nation. They can't claim benefits. So theirs that Well no, but there's the cost of accommodation, legal aid and asylum support payouts. At the end of the day it all has to be paid for from the public purse which isn't big enough for the demands. Because cruella crashed the asylum process deliberately. They £49 a week if not in accommodation The ones in accommodation get £9 Begruging that to the most desperate people on earth really?" That's rough, 9 quid a day doesn't leave much for food, heating, rent, travel costs, medical costs etc. £63 a week won't get you much | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I blame business they do not pay enough so employees have to claim benefits usually Housing Benefits so here we are paying for employers. The government sets the minimum wage, so a single person living alone should be able to live on that. £1750 a month take home roughly. I’d say that’s a tough ask in a big city with high rent charges. But easy for someone living at home with parents. For a couple living together with two incomes and no kids I’d say that’s fairly easy to do. You have brought to light two of my points, young adults who are working, but cannot buy a property so have to live with their parents. Was this the case when you were that age? The rich buying all the assets, in cities and then raising the rent. So you see what's happening . A single person needs a minimum of 28,000, and a couple with no children need a combined wage of 40,000, that is using the minimum income calculator which is available on line, one puts in their details and it will tell a person if they are earning enough due to their circumstances. There’s other issues here, hidden in the undergrowth…. Typical family has 2 kids and lives in a 3 bed house. The kids want independence so wanna get their own place. A family that was taking up on residence is now taking up 3. Eventually the kids cohabit with partners who also fled the same 3 bed family home so availability of this type of accommodation is constantly recycling. But both set of parents are still occupying their 3 bed houses. It’s their homes, why should they leave? And I agree. The kids might split and need to come home again till they get in their feet. Have grandkids sleep over. Or they just want to exercise their human rights to live on their own land in their own house. All reasonable arguments, but they are still hogging the two extra bedrooms. If it was benefit funded, the so called bedroom tax incentivises them to downscale, but when you own there’s no incentive. When I was a kid, nobody I knew got their own place until they moved in with a partner. But now it’s almost expected. This as well as the overall lack of building has made renting incredibly expensive and that’s what is killing the ability to live on minimum wage. It’s not a case of employers not paying enough, its the cost of living has increased faster than wages. Fuel costs impact everything making it more expensive and that to a great extent is affected by global markets. But also taxation. Energy companies pay 78% tax. Cut that tax by 20% and cut the fuel cap by 20%. That would instantly make every household better off. When I was employed I got a raise in line with the cost of living every year, do people still get this yearly raise? I believe this raise is not so popular with employers anymore, which naturally lead to a rise in working people claiming benefits not the ones we think of but housing benefit, and due to that PiP comes into play. If the employer paid a decent wage and ignored the national living wage (which is in fact a tool to keep wages low) then we would pay less in benefits. I would like to think that everyday prices would return to normal levels whatever normal is these days, but people of a certain age know they would they have been squeezed before and are going through it again. Things are so bad and people are looking for a way out, they are considering voting reform a racists political LTD company." People used to be paid what they were worth and if they worked hard and did well they deserved and got a pay rise. Then the minimum wage came in and lazy bastards get the same as the hard workers and the employer can't sack the lazy bastards so can't afford to pay the hard worker more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Exactly the point the French are making re channel crossings. The UK benefits system is too generous and a magnet for migrants, legal or otherwise. Likewise, overly high welfare benefits are a disincentive to work. In a nutshell, we are living beyond our means as a nation. They can't claim benefits. So theirs that Well no, but there's the cost of accommodation, legal aid and asylum support payouts. At the end of the day it all has to be paid for from the public purse which isn't big enough for the demands. Because cruella crashed the asylum process deliberately. They £49 a week if not in accommodation The ones in accommodation get £9 Begruging that to the most desperate people on earth really? That's rough, 9 quid a day doesn't leave much for food, heating, rent, travel costs, medical costs etc. £63 a week won't get you much" If not in accommodation? Who’s not in accommodation? They all get 3 squares a day and a free roof over their head. It’s illegal to not do so | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When I was employed I got a raise in line with the cost of living every year, do people still get this yearly raise? I believe this raise is not so popular with employers anymore, which naturally lead to a rise in working people claiming benefits not the ones we think of but housing benefit, and due to that PiP comes into play. If the employer paid a decent wage and ignored the national living wage (which is in fact a tool to keep wages low) then we would pay less in benefits. I would like to think that everyday prices would return to normal levels whatever normal is these days, but people of a certain age know they would they have been squeezed before and are going through it again. I’d be interested to know how many companies gave lower pay rises to staff after the introduction of the minimum wage and progressively brought their pay scale in line with minimum wage when it would have previously been higher. The minimum wage is definitely a double edged sword, some have gained, some have lost. And now we have this government defined hourly rate that an awful lot of employers set their pay rate at, because they can. I don’t see your connection between housing benefit and PIP though. " PiP is a universal benefit, people who are employed are entitled to it, but if one receives a benefit and are in work they can claim PiP not everyone will get it but most do making the PiP bill expensive making it unpopular. If employers paid more access to these benefits would reduce as the claimant would not qualify due to their wage. And because the employer pays low wages we top up the employee wages not good but that's the reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Exactly the point the French are making re channel crossings. The UK benefits system is too generous and a magnet for migrants, legal or otherwise. Likewise, overly high welfare benefits are a disincentive to work. In a nutshell, we are living beyond our means as a nation. They can't claim benefits. So theirs that Well no, but there's the cost of accommodation, legal aid and asylum support payouts. At the end of the day it all has to be paid for from the public purse which isn't big enough for the demands. Because cruella crashed the asylum process deliberately. They £49 a week if not in accommodation The ones in accommodation get £9 Begruging that to the most desperate people on earth really? That's rough, 9 quid a day doesn't leave much for food, heating, rent, travel costs, medical costs etc. £63 a week won't get you much If not in accommodation? Who’s not in accommodation? They all get 3 squares a day and a free roof over their head. It’s illegal to not do so" So they get £9 a day spending allowance (£63 p/w) with all bills and needs already paid for, food, accommodation etc. In fairness there are many working families who don't have a £63 surplus weekly after bills, taxes etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When I was employed I got a raise in line with the cost of living every year, do people still get this yearly raise? I believe this raise is not so popular with employers anymore, which naturally lead to a rise in working people claiming benefits not the ones we think of but housing benefit, and due to that PiP comes into play. If the employer paid a decent wage and ignored the national living wage (which is in fact a tool to keep wages low) then we would pay less in benefits. I would like to think that everyday prices would return to normal levels whatever normal is these days, but people of a certain age know they would they have been squeezed before and are going through it again. I’d be interested to know how many companies gave lower pay rises to staff after the introduction of the minimum wage and progressively brought their pay scale in line with minimum wage when it would have previously been higher. The minimum wage is definitely a double edged sword, some have gained, some have lost. And now we have this government defined hourly rate that an awful lot of employers set their pay rate at, because they can. I don’t see your connection between housing benefit and PIP though. PiP is a universal benefit, people who are employed are entitled to it, but if one receives a benefit and are in work they can claim PiP not everyone will get it but most do making the PiP bill expensive making it unpopular. If employers paid more access to these benefits would reduce as the claimant would not qualify due to their wage. And because the employer pays low wages we top up the employee wages not good but that's the reality." I think you may be confusing your benefits. PIP is a disability benefit. It used to be called DLA (disability living allowance), and the child version is still called that. But the adult version was rebranded to Personal Independence Payment. You can work and still get PIP, it’s not means tested so you can have £10 million in the bank and earn £140k a year as a doctor, and still get this state benefit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When I was employed I got a raise in line with the cost of living every year, do people still get this yearly raise? I believe this raise is not so popular with employers anymore, which naturally lead to a rise in working people claiming benefits not the ones we think of but housing benefit, and due to that PiP comes into play. If the employer paid a decent wage and ignored the national living wage (which is in fact a tool to keep wages low) then we would pay less in benefits. I would like to think that everyday prices would return to normal levels whatever normal is these days, but people of a certain age know they would they have been squeezed before and are going through it again. I’d be interested to know how many companies gave lower pay rises to staff after the introduction of the minimum wage and progressively brought their pay scale in line with minimum wage when it would have previously been higher. The minimum wage is definitely a double edged sword, some have gained, some have lost. And now we have this government defined hourly rate that an awful lot of employers set their pay rate at, because they can. I don’t see your connection between housing benefit and PIP though. PiP is a universal benefit, people who are employed are entitled to it, but if one receives a benefit and are in work they can claim PiP not everyone will get it but most do making the PiP bill expensive making it unpopular. If employers paid more access to these benefits would reduce as the claimant would not qualify due to their wage. And because the employer pays low wages we top up the employee wages not good but that's the reality. I think you may be confusing your benefits. PIP is a disability benefit. It used to be called DLA (disability living allowance), and the child version is still called that. But the adult version was rebranded to Personal Independence Payment. You can work and still get PIP, it’s not means tested so you can have £10 million in the bank and earn £140k a year as a doctor, and still get this state benefit. " I am not and you are right PiP is not means tested. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On an allied topic, Wes Streeting wants Doctors to refer patients to the gym or job coaches rather than signing them off as “not fit for work”. He says the UK’s economy could no longer afford to “keep writing people off”. Just back from time in Italy I can see his point. People are in way better shape, especially the young, a group with barely any obesity. What are we getting wrong? We are eating the NHS into crisis." I noticed once the amount of children being taken to fast food outlets using the cheap menu. I told my partner who told me the mothers were struggling with bills heat, water general cost of running a household, this before the pandemic. Also the microwave, I use a micro to warm things up in containers which are quick to clean and cheaper on utilities. But now the amount of food one can buy put in the micro is crazy, it is proven these processed foods are not good for us, but for some reason things are said but nothing done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On an allied topic, Wes Streeting wants Doctors to refer patients to the gym or job coaches rather than signing them off as “not fit for work”. He says the UK’s economy could no longer afford to “keep writing people off”. Just back from time in Italy I can see his point. People are in way better shape, especially the young, a group with barely any obesity. What are we getting wrong? We are eating the NHS into crisis." Agree, and the mental health thing is interesting actually. I certainly benefit from running, don't need medication but I do use talking therapy (private) when running alone isn't enough. It won't be for everyone but if you catch depression or anxiety early enough exercise will definitely help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can wealth persuade poverty to use its political power to keep wealth in power? Here lies the whole art of Conservative politics in the twentieth century. Aneurin Bevan " So let's have your opinion on the quote and it's relevance to society today | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your all displaying here in thread after thread. " Looks like it's you against the world. The world must be wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your all displaying here in thread after thread. Looks like it's you against the world. The world must be wrong." Your just duped by the system. Wealth tax, absolutely not!! Even though it won't affect 99% of you. The rich and political class het away with it over and over again. And it reveals a lot about you that you think that the world thinks like you?? I understand that the zeitgeist currently is racism and intolerance but the pendulum will swing back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And it reveals a lot about you that you think that the world thinks like you??" YOU were complaining that "you all" (i.e. everyone else) think differently to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And it reveals a lot about you that you think that the world thinks like you?? YOU were complaining that "you all" (i.e. everyone else) think differently to you." Most on here do think differently to me, that's evident from the right wing bilge that's spouted on here hourly. Regurgitating Daily Mail talking points or parroting pound shop Farage lines. I'm not arrogant enough to assume that the world does though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Even you now aren't actually arguing with the thrust of my point you've chosen to take issue with semantics. " No issue. Just lightening the mood with some humour  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Even you now aren't actually arguing with the thrust of my point you've chosen to take issue with semantics. No issue. Just lightening the mood with some humour "Seriously stop feeding him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"ignored the national living wage (which is in fact a tool to keep wages low) ..." So Labour just need to abolish the minimum wage, and employers will suddenly start paying more? So why did they introduce it in the first place? And why haven't they got rid of it yet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The point about low income earners not being able to afford to live in cities, without having benefits top up their income is an interesting point. It begs the question, why do low income earners want to live in a major city in the first place. Why wouldn't they locate to an area that offered the same types of work? There are countless parts of the UK where the cost of rent, transport, and daily living is lower than the major cities. Relocating to lower cost areas could dramatically improve living standards without requiring ongoing benefits to plug the gap. So why pay individuals benefits to remain? " Cities attract a more liberal person who enjoys living with people from different backgrounds. Why should they be forced to relocate because your precious wealthy won't pay their staff more? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your just duped by the system. Wealth tax, absolutely not!! Even though it won't affect 99% of you." Is that the way you think things should be? So if the government decides to reduce crime by locking up all black people, I should just shrug and accept it, because I'm white and it doesn't affect me? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The point about low income earners not being able to afford to live in cities, without having benefits top up their income is an interesting point. It begs the question, why do low income earners want to live in a major city in the first place. Why wouldn't they locate to an area that offered the same types of work? There are countless parts of the UK where the cost of rent, transport, and daily living is lower than the major cities. Relocating to lower cost areas could dramatically improve living standards without requiring ongoing benefits to plug the gap. So why pay individuals benefits to remain? Cities attract a more liberal person who enjoys living with people from different backgrounds. Why should they be forced to relocate because your precious wealthy won't pay their staff more?" Perfect timing, I was discussing the use of marxist tropes on another thread, I was challenged on that comment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The point about low income earners not being able to afford to live in cities, without having benefits top up their income is an interesting point. It begs the question, why do low income earners want to live in a major city in the first place. Why wouldn't they locate to an area that offered the same types of work? There are countless parts of the UK where the cost of rent, transport, and daily living is lower than the major cities. Relocating to lower cost areas could dramatically improve living standards without requiring ongoing benefits to plug the gap. So why pay individuals benefits to remain? Cities attract a more liberal person who enjoys living with people from different backgrounds. Why should they be forced to relocate because your precious wealthy won't pay their staff more?" So because someone chooses a lifestyle beyond their means then wealthy people should subside it that's absolutely ridiculous pmsl | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your just duped by the system. Wealth tax, absolutely not!! Even though it won't affect 99% of you. Is that the way you think things should be? So if the government decides to reduce crime by locking up all black people, I should just shrug and accept it, because I'm white and it doesn't affect me?" Here we go being in rave to protect the rich | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The point about low income earners not being able to afford to live in cities, without having benefits top up their income is an interesting point. It begs the question, why do low income earners want to live in a major city in the first place. Why wouldn't they locate to an area that offered the same types of work? There are countless parts of the UK where the cost of rent, transport, and daily living is lower than the major cities. Relocating to lower cost areas could dramatically improve living standards without requiring ongoing benefits to plug the gap. So why pay individuals benefits to remain? Cities attract a more liberal person who enjoys living with people from different backgrounds. Why should they be forced to relocate because your precious wealthy won't pay their staff more? So because someone chooses a lifestyle beyond their means then wealthy people should subside it that's absolutely ridiculous pmsl Leftie liberals should be subsidised to whatever lifestyle they want mate. And anyone earning more that anyone else is a selfish Nazi if they don’t hand over that bit extra. " Your all ready subsidising the working poor because of your mentality. Nothing to do with left or right. People should just be able to afford to live wherever they choose | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your just duped by the system. Wealth tax, absolutely not!! Even though it won't affect 99% of you. Is that the way you think things should be? So if the government decides to reduce crime by locking up all black people, I should just shrug and accept it, because I'm white and it doesn't affect me? Here we go being in rave to protect the rich " bring in race | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People should just be able to afford to live wherever they choose " The idea that people should be able to do whatever they want regardless of how much it costs and how much they earn, is just ludicrous. Do you genuinely believe that? You’re not just trying to wind us all up? You think people who work hard to make a better life for their family should compensate those who don’t? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People should just be able to afford to live wherever they choose The idea that people should be able to do whatever they want regardless of how much it costs and how much they earn, is just ludicrous. Do you genuinely believe that? You’re not just trying to wind us all up? You think people who work hard to make a better life for their family should compensate those who don’t?" Blimey, so people shouldn't be able to afford to live where they choose? It's acceptable for certain areas to be unobtainable for certainty people? Don't we all need cleaners, doctors, lawyers, wealth creaters? Do you want to live in gated communities? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People should just be able to afford to live wherever they choose" "The idea that people should be able to do whatever they want regardless of how much it costs and how much they earn, is just ludicrous. Do you genuinely believe that? You’re not just trying to wind us all up? You think people who work hard to make a better life for their family should compensate those who don’t?" "Blimey, so people shouldn't be able to afford to live where they choose? It's acceptable for certain areas to be unobtainable for certainty people?" I'd quite like to live in Kensington, or possibly Mayfair. Will the government be chipping in to help me afford the rent? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People should just be able to afford to live wherever they choose The idea that people should be able to do whatever they want regardless of how much it costs and how much they earn, is just ludicrous. Do you genuinely believe that? You’re not just trying to wind us all up? You think people who work hard to make a better life for their family should compensate those who don’t? Blimey, so people shouldn't be able to afford to live where they choose? It's acceptable for certain areas to be unobtainable for certainty people? Don't we all need cleaners, doctors, lawyers, wealth creaters? Do you want to live in gated communities?" Nobody is preventing anyone from doing anything, people prevent themselves from doing it. Or it’s just not logistically possible. I live in a small town. Maybe 3,000 homes. Can everyone live here? No, there’s isn’t enough homes. As it happens not everyone wants to live here which is just as well. But if demand was high, prices would increase to reflect that demand. Can everyone live in Mayfair in London? A far more desirable location and that’s reflected in the property values. But the cleaner in the local Burger King decides she wants to live there. But she can’t afford it on her wages. So in your little dream world utopia, where does she get the money? Are you gonna give it to her? Property around there is £10 million and upwards. Why should anyone have to give her the money, just because they want it? There is a way of course. Maybe she starts her own cleaning business and works her ass off to build it, to grow it, to make it successful. And in a few years if she works hard enough, gets some lucky breaks, maybe she can afford it. And that’s the bit you don’t seem to get. Yeah you can get lucky and come up with an idea like Facebook (a good place to buy nukes I hear) and become a billionaire. But that’s unlikely. And no, hard work and efforts don’t alway turn into wealth. 50% of new businesses fail in the first two years, by 5 years it’s 80%. She could win the lottery of course, but that’s even less likely than building a billion dollar tech business. It was interesting the way you worded the question “ Blimey, so people shouldn't be able to afford to live where they choose”. Quite deliberately not asking “shouldn’t people be able to live where there want?” Because the obvious answer to that is “yes if they can afford it”. So your question really is “shouldn’t everyone have enough money to do whatever they want?” Wouldn’t that be a wonderful world. Everyone has a bank card with unlimited credit that they never have to pay back. But the problem would be, nothing would ever get made because nobody would go to work. So then maybe make it a condition of having the card is you have to go to work. But we can’t seem to get some job filled. Nobody wants to clean toilets, what trillionaire wants to clean a shitty toilet at BK? Or wash wheelie bins. Unblock drains. Pick fruit in the blazing sun. Pure communism is impossible to have and its poor cousin socialism just doesn’t work for the same reasons. People want to better themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The point about low income earners not being able to afford to live in cities, without having benefits top up their income is an interesting point. It begs the question, why do low income earners want to live in a major city in the first place. Why wouldn't they locate to an area that offered the same types of work? There are countless parts of the UK where the cost of rent, transport, and daily living is lower than the major cities. Relocating to lower cost areas could dramatically improve living standards without requiring ongoing benefits to plug the gap. So why pay individuals benefits to remain? Cities attract a more liberal person who enjoys living with people from different backgrounds. Why should they be forced to relocate because your precious wealthy won't pay their staff more? So because someone chooses a lifestyle beyond their means then wealthy people should subside it that's absolutely ridiculous pmsl Leftie liberals should be subsidised to whatever lifestyle they want mate. And anyone earning more that anyone else is a selfish Nazi if they don’t hand over that bit extra. Your all ready subsidising the working poor because of your mentality. Nothing to do with left or right. People should just be able to afford to live wherever they choose " People should be able to afford to live wherever they choose ... Hmmm interesting concept lol People should live where they can afford | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Didn't realise I was arguing for all wages to be the same and all property prices to be the same. I'm arguing for the people at the lowest end of the wealth scale to have a little more to be able to live in let's say Cardiff. That doesn't mean they can afford every property in Cardiff but they should be able to enjoy the city within a reasonable confine to it. Your arguing for the already poor to be poorer and move to poorer areas of they can't afford to live close to their desired place. One sounds cruel the other the desired outcome of any fair society " You're not making any sense whatsoever, people have to live where they can afford or they can get a better job and move somewhere nicer. That's how it's always been and exactly how it should be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Exactly the point the French are making re channel crossings. The UK benefits system is too generous and a magnet for migrants, legal or otherwise. Likewise, overly high welfare benefits are a disincentive to work. In a nutshell, we are living beyond our means as a nation. They can't claim benefits. So theirs that Well no, but there's the cost of accommodation, legal aid and asylum support payouts. At the end of the day it all has to be paid for from the public purse which isn't big enough for the demands. Because cruella crashed the asylum process deliberately. They £49 a week if not in accommodation The ones in accommodation get £9 Begruging that to the most desperate people on earth really?" Each asylum seeker cost around 40k per year... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Exactly the point the French are making re channel crossings. The UK benefits system is too generous and a magnet for migrants, legal or otherwise. Likewise, overly high welfare benefits are a disincentive to work. In a nutshell, we are living beyond our means as a nation. They can't claim benefits. So theirs that Well no, but there's the cost of accommodation, legal aid and asylum support payouts. At the end of the day it all has to be paid for from the public purse which isn't big enough for the demands. Because cruella crashed the asylum process deliberately. They £49 a week if not in accommodation The ones in accommodation get £9 Begruging that to the most desperate people on earth really? Each asylum seeker cost around 40k per year..." Breakdown and sources ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
