Keith , just one post directly from me to you I have made no statement that I agree or disagree with you on this thread . I post what I post when I post it because I wish to.
Guest 656- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,262
People struggling on low wages just simply can't wait for the economic recovery to kick in. This is not the best hope for them in the here and now as they will find themselves completely desolate by then, some may even end up on the streets god forbid. The government seem completey oblivious to the plight of the minimum wage worker trying to make ends meet and keep off the dole.
This Country doesn't seem to care about the hard working man that used to be the backbone of this Country. Not to mention the young trying to make their way through University to better themselves. It beggars belief that students in Wales and Scotland, both being part of the UK don't have to pay tuition fees whilst English students now have to pay, in the majority of cases, £9000pa for same. How can we better the economy in the long term if England don't support them. Even counting their loans as income for healthcare entitlement is complely ludicrous
And don't even get me started on those of pension age.
Why is the state pension considered as income. The pensioners have worked all their life and paid their dues so a little let up at this stage should surely be in order. A lot of older people still have to work to make ends meet and if they take a job in order to do so they simply struggle yet again.
I fear for all these vunerable people in the present day.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
The 'Benefit Society(?)' goes hand-in-hand with the knee-jerk 'sack the workforce and see the benefit of rationalisation' business ploy. It may have taken two world wars and countless other minor scuffles for we as a Nation to come to terms with the idea of dealing with our population in terms other than 'expendable'.
Yes, national and pan-national circumstances may require that an individual is working one minute and unemployed the next, but s/he is ever to be viewed as a National Asset. [something spoken about but seldom a reality]
A business may well be right that their books are kept in the black by rationalisation now and higher employment sometime in the future, but we cannot, and the taxation take and spend cannot, abandon people as easily as business can. If viable employment cannot be found for a portion of the 'working' population then a benefit system should ensure that life goes on in a reasonable fashion for those without employment.
This particular bullet is never to be bit while we , as a population, accept Political Dualism as the only way. More-so when both Political Partys, the one seen as the only possible successor to the other, share much the same view on all fronts.
Businesses complain that the available workforce is ill-equipped for the (notional) job opportunities. How better can they hope to approach a day when the available workforce is ill-nourished/malnourished, homeless and hopeless to boot?
That our lack of political options is matched by our lack of business acumen and drive among those charged with the task of 'creating' work and wealth bodes more ill for our future.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
passionate stuff from tom and colette there, difficult to disagree with any of it.
roger's brother is told to grit his teeth and wait for the upturn expected in 2026.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
On the subject of Roger's brother, or anybody in much the same situation.
Apart from looking out for more remunerative and suitable employment, Gumtree.com has a 'jobs' section, which should be able to be tuned to the area and needs of any individual, where small short term work is advertised. If say somebody had spare time or a particular knack they could pick up the odd bit of extra cash locally.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 62. Agree...A state pension should be tax free.
What does the Treasury receive from state pensions?
What does the Treasury lose from people avoiding taxes?
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
A lot of common sense in what you have said Gary and Colette; I think I understood what you're saying Tom - I hope so anyway.
I think Tom, my brother is almost scared to take a chance applying for other jobs in case they don't work out. As he was searching for so long for a job, I believe he feels that a bird (job) in the hand is worth two in the bush, or is it "better the devil you know" ?
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
mmmm..... I am not going to pick up on every point since I last looked in but I have to pick up on this rubbish that the State pension should be tax-free.
Interesting that Reg and Collette want to give the better off pensioners a tax break because that is what they are saying.
If you are over 65 you have a personal tax allowance of £10,500 per annum (£10,660 over 75) as long as your total taxable income is not over ££25,400 pa.
So none of the worse-off pensioners get to pay any tax at all who have only the basic state pension £5587.40 pa, or indeed any State Second Pension top-up. In fact, as you can see, you would need a decent sized private pension to fall into the basic rate tax bracket.
Remember also - over 65 you pay tax at 20p and no NI so even the tax paid is relatively small on better off pensioners. The big exception are those with taxable income between £25,401 and £30,190 who are taxed at an effective rate of 30p.
So yes - it is interesting that you want to help better off pensioners.
Personally I would prefer the tax free allowance to be increased a lot further than current proposals so it helps people working and on a lower wage.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
As a tax paying pensioner I would much prefer not to pay tax on the the extra not very big private pension I get. I suspect Barry will feel the same when he is in the same position.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
some interesting views and qiute varied
sarah;
just having a laugh you agreed with tom/one other
i posted exactly the same.
never mind though hope you have a nice day
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Alright, here's on from me:
I was hoping to enjoy my youth before reaching pension age.
The Government have told me quite clearly that they have made this impossible, and will do so in the future. They have told me that for 13 years there will be misery ever increasing.
They have made it quite clear that I will never have a chance to get out of the carton, that not Prosperity, but Desolation will be upon us by the hand of the Government.
That they will waste my life away and kill off the joy of living.
It was a message to many of us.
So I sat biding my time, and thought "they will become hated by many, for they hate us".
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Jan - of course you would rather not pay tax and that is perfectly reasonable for anyone to think, but policy makers have to look at it in the whole and decide on priorities and under the circumstances better off pensioners are not the priority.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
That's a good point Barry, the more well off can afford to pay more tax.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Not more tax DT1 - just not reduce it for pensioners, as it is not necessary or a priority. There are higher priorities for tax cuts which should be applied where they will do most economic good.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
BARRYW;
We need a general system where the rich pay a fair whack and not be allowed to hide earnings and look to be fair.
we need the poorest in our society to be looked after
we need those abusing the system at all levels sorted once sand for all.
we need a govt willing to tackle these few things and a lot more
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I have no problems about a 'fair share' the problem you have is twofold: Interpreting what a 'fair share' means and secondly the excessive levels of government spending we have which debilitate the economy.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
but let's just stick at the moment to the benefits system rather than the wider economy,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
The two are inextricably linked Keith.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
And that's the point!
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
"inextricably linked"?
I am having trouble getting past that particular coupling of terms. Coupled, how and to what degree??
To the exclusion of any or all other aspects of...what? Society, Nation...??
As cart and horse, perhaps? But, who makes the cart, who looks after the horse?? What's in the cart, how hilly the way??
Why am I doing all the work? All the 'worrying'?
So, no!! The Economy and The Benefit System are most certainly not linked, inextricably or otherwise. To aver such is a cop-out.
Were shall we begin? What actually is The Economy?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
