Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
so is "Call me David" finally showing his Thatcherite traits?
On Sky News this morning, his Chancellor, George Osborne was said to have ducked and dived in a Q and A session regarding child benefit and winter fuel payments, it is thought that the latter will now only be paid to the 66+ pensioners and not 60 as it is now, the child benefits will be reduced for the 2/3/4 child or more, which tbh cant be a bad thing, this may or may not stop the young girls going on to mass produce often with a different father each time.
It appears the elderly and the young are always the soft targets, why not the fat cats and the MPs contribute to the austerity cuts we are about to have? and catch up with the Tax evaders who don't pay a penny in revenue here....because the old and young don't shout so it's an easy option?
It appears the elderly and the young are always the soft targets, why not the fat cats and the MPs contribute to the austerity cuts we are about to have? and catch up with the Tax evaders who don't pay a penny in revenue here....because the old and young don't shout so it's an easy option?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bobbisox. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Steve, no, not everybody is in Bobbi's situation and that's precisely the point.
I actually asked you what you want but you haven't answered me.
1. Do you want people who don't need benefits to continue to be able to claim them?
2. Do you think that those who work for a living should pay taxes in order to keep the lazy bu&&ers who don't want to work, and are you happy for your taxes to be squandered in that way? (I presume you do work full time and pay taxes?).
3. Is the government wrong in attempting to overhaul a corrupt system that is appallingly and purposefully abused?
And you didn't attempt to elect anyone, democratically or otherwise. You sat back and allowed other people to choose for you - so you have no grounds for complaint.
I actually asked you what you want but you haven't answered me.
1. Do you want people who don't need benefits to continue to be able to claim them?
2. Do you think that those who work for a living should pay taxes in order to keep the lazy bu&&ers who don't want to work, and are you happy for your taxes to be squandered in that way? (I presume you do work full time and pay taxes?).
3. Is the government wrong in attempting to overhaul a corrupt system that is appallingly and purposefully abused?
And you didn't attempt to elect anyone, democratically or otherwise. You sat back and allowed other people to choose for you - so you have no grounds for complaint.
Steve, another thought. You said to Bobbi "100 up". Now I'm not au fait with some of these expressions, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume that means you think it's good that she gets money from the government that she doesn't need. (Again sorry Bobbi - just an example).
Has it occurred to you that the very people you think you are supporting - the Working Class - are the ones who are working in low paid occupations - and paying their taxes - and much of the time struggling to make ends meet? It is not only the money of the rich and the middle classes that supports the lifestyle of the bone idle. If it wasn't for those who prefer to retain their dignity and their self respect by earning a living, there would be little money in the pot to share out among the lazy amongst us to claim, so who and what are you really supporting? Perhaps if people like you got their priorities right society might be able to afford to take care of people who should be taken care of - like Ummmm's grandfather. Think about it.
Has it occurred to you that the very people you think you are supporting - the Working Class - are the ones who are working in low paid occupations - and paying their taxes - and much of the time struggling to make ends meet? It is not only the money of the rich and the middle classes that supports the lifestyle of the bone idle. If it wasn't for those who prefer to retain their dignity and their self respect by earning a living, there would be little money in the pot to share out among the lazy amongst us to claim, so who and what are you really supporting? Perhaps if people like you got their priorities right society might be able to afford to take care of people who should be taken care of - like Ummmm's grandfather. Think about it.
I disagree ummmm. Your grandfather's paid into the system all his life, but he might as well have spent and enjoyed his money like other people do because he'd have been looked after just the same. With the system as it currently stands, you're worse off providing for yourself. Where care is concerned, I don't think the elderly should be burdened with financial worries.
no offence taken Naomi, I am one of the lucky ones and having £250 taken from Bill, who is the recipient of the WFA, wouldn't cause us hardship, however there are a lot of pensioners in a much worse position then we are who are probably branded unfairly as squandering the amount on Christmas presents and fags, this is the point of this thread, this Government are ruling out a means test, too arduous a tasks no doubt, so everyone suffers, except the rich and the people like us who have saved hard and put onto a private pension which I hasten to add, we pay a chunk out in tax...back to the Government
-- answer removed --
You can't be that upset though Steve, because you couldn't be arsed to vote.
Both Labour and the tories were going to tackle the budget deficit, but as I understand it, the Labour approach would have been a greater emphasis on tax rises rather than cuts, and later rather than sooner.
So there's no point whinging about it now, because when you actually had the chance to influence things, you didn't bother.
Both Labour and the tories were going to tackle the budget deficit, but as I understand it, the Labour approach would have been a greater emphasis on tax rises rather than cuts, and later rather than sooner.
So there's no point whinging about it now, because when you actually had the chance to influence things, you didn't bother.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
pensioners may have paid their national insurance and taxes . as the average wage annually in the 1940s was less than £270.79 to £474.66 ( http://uk.answers.yah...20100315071014AA4sFWm )
that would mean that if umm grandad had earned the average wage in say 1940s that his full earnings wouldnt even amount to the monthly shortfall. thats just as an example and nothin against umm but pensioners were paying pennies per month in national insurance and now require care that costs more than they could ever have paid into the system. theres no big pot of money and if you pay pennies in you cant expect a constant flow of money out. so if you have the money in savins or property then you should pay
that would mean that if umm grandad had earned the average wage in say 1940s that his full earnings wouldnt even amount to the monthly shortfall. thats just as an example and nothin against umm but pensioners were paying pennies per month in national insurance and now require care that costs more than they could ever have paid into the system. theres no big pot of money and if you pay pennies in you cant expect a constant flow of money out. so if you have the money in savins or property then you should pay
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.