The harsh truth about Tory policies

abaxas

wolvoman wrote: »

I agree. But why can't all but the very poor look after themselves?

And why £50k? It is way below the average City salary and just about the average salary in London.

Maybe if you live in some rural part of Wales, £50k suggests being rich - eolsewhere it isn't.

Becasue it covers higher end jobs in the pay scale. Why protect people with money?

The local area has nothing to do with this as people choose where they live and the jobs they take.

wolvoman

abaxas wrote: »

Becasue it covers higher end jobs in the pay scale. Why protect people with money?

The local area has nothing to do with this as people choose where they live and the jobs they take.

So you think someone earning £50k in London is better able to pay for employment protection than someone earning £45k in a Welsh valley?

If you do then I can't continue debating with you as I always lose against stupidity.

abaxas

wolvoman wrote: »

So you think someone earning £50k in London is better able to pay for employment protection than someone earning £45k in a Welsh valley?

If you do then I can't continue debating with you as I always lose against stupidity.

Why is someone living in London allowed a a larger share of tax spend than someone in the welsh valley?

Inequality is built into the system, nothing can be universally fair.

chucky

abaxas wrote: »

Why is someone living in London allowed a a larger share of tax spend than someone in the welsh valley?

Inequality is built into the system, nothing can be univerally fair.

because life is unfair - newcastle and middlesbrough got relegated so deal with it

Emy1501

ghanagirl wrote: »

When the Benefit, Pension and NHS systems were created there was nothing for the ordinary poor people of this country who were paid pennies when working and nothing when they became old or ill and had to rely on charity to survive.
Now these systems are available to all no matter how rich you are and thats the problem, these systems are being exploited by the rich who can pay for their own pensions and medical / health needs yet choose to claim from these systems.
so for my 2p worth as the saying goes
Anyone who earns over £50.000 should loose the following
State Pension, Free NHS treatment, Child Benefit, Tax Credits,
and they should have to get their own Medical insurance and pension.

Buy a million pound house rent it out to the council to pay for it.
Prince Charles breaks his arm and has NHS treatment.
These are the things we as a public should moan about and stop.

As for Mctavish and his pathetic moaning about car speeds and the amount of time he works which by the way is breaking the EU work time directive.
For 50 years drivers have been asked to lower their speeds to comply with the law but they refuse. now is the time for the government to limit the capable speeds of motor vechilces to 80 mph.

As a sister to a soldier who has done 3 tours of Iraq and 2 of afghanistan who as we speak according to the M.O.D is having a break from combat by being posted to Cyprus before going back to afghanistan in march.
i have nothing but contempt for Jacqui Janes and The Sun newspaper, they only wanted a story to hit Gordon Brown and she went along with it, her son's name will always be in the shadow of this story and his bravey and death will always come second. Your in mourning and the PM PHONES YOU and the 1st thing you do is record the phone call. :mad:

I'm sure many on 50K+ would be happy to pay for their own care etc if their NI and tax contribution were reduced;)

50K especially in the South East is not alot especially if you have a family. By time you pay a mortgage/rent, council tax, bills etc I doubt there is a huge amount left over to pay for the care you talk about.

wolvoman

abaxas wrote: »

Inequality is built into the system, nothing can be universally fair.

Bingo. Then you should agree a flat tax and either no or universal benefits is the way forward.

PaulW1965

Emy1501 wrote: »

I'm sure many on 50K+ would be happy to pay for their own care etc if their NI and tax contribution were reduced;)

50K especially in the South East is not alot especially if you have a family. By time you pay a mortgage/rent, council tax, bills etc I doubt there is a huge amount left over to pay for the care you talk about.

'tis funny 'cos I could have sworn that on page 11 you were arguing that £20k was ample - silly me:rolleyes:

abaxas

wolvoman wrote: »

Bingo. Then you should agree a flat tax and either no or universal benefits is the way forward.

The pole tax as a flat rate, and although 'fair' look what happened.

Hence why we have to have inequality.

Emy1501

PaulW1965 wrote: »

'tis funny 'cos I could have sworn that on page 11 you were arguing that £20k was ample - silly me:rolleyes:

Did I? I said I knew someone who had refused to take job because they were better off on benefit. I also pointed out that someone on that figure could be given benefits to top up their wage rather than making work pointless. I also pointed out they were part of a family and therefore they could have both been encouraged to work maybe one part time with the relevant help;)

JayScottGreenspan

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Originally Posted by kabayiri
It's weird isn't it.

Few would argue 4.5K per month on a single benefit item is sustainable. What's that, about 6 tax payers per year supporting solely that item?

Yet, it seems no matter how much we try to engineer a social system for fairness, you get these clear aberrations.

I'm really not sure there is an answer now.

These aberrations only occur with families. It's because the Labour Party have a policy of trying to lift children out of poverty. The money isn't been given to the adults, it's been given to the families to try and help the kids - which is why we never hear of single people and couples receiving too much benefits. However, it seems to have the unintended consequence of making many really angry

What's to be done? Don't kids of poor parents deserve a little help? Isn't it cheaper to target them when they are young than wait until they are in jail, which is pretty expensive too?

Some very stinky fallacious reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

What about a sensible nationwide cap on LHA allowances? That would mean no family could claim £4.5k per month, regardless of where they live. If they were accustomed to living in a very posh area of London then maybe they would have to move down the road a mile or two (big deal!).
Problem solved._party_

(And BTW, anyone who raises the straw man of ghettoisation as a counter argument will only be proving how stupid they are. A sensible LHA allowance cap would permit claimants free choice of perhaps 95% of the entire land mass of the UK to make their nest. They just wouldn't be able to afford to live next to Harrods.)