An end to the free swim for kids and over 60's

BLT_2

tanith wrote: »

BLT it seems you actually never have a good word to say about anybody or post a positive post....... why comment if you can't offer something constructive..:o I guess its just to provoke a comment in which I case I appear to be playing your game... silly me

Yep, got to admit, it was pretty dumb of you :rotfl:

Hannah_10

dizzie wrote: »

Well, personally I thought the free swim idea for over 60s and kids was a bit of a gimmick - a cheap vote winning ploy put into action as Britain was getting up to its neck in debt!

So did everyone else who can't understand that the council tax bill and the national insurance bill both come from the same source.

It just goes to show... You can put the factual content as clearly as you like but there will always be the barstool prophets of doom who can't read beyond the headline. One of the huge flaws with a democracy is that on any given subject they will always outnumber the people that have read the whole article.

dizzie

Well, I stick to what I said earlier...people with health conditions (regardless of age!) should certainly be given help to exercise - and those on low incomes (again regardless of age)should be helped too. So if you are a pensioner with a health condition - or one on a low income, I don't have a problem with heavy discounts or in some cases free swimming. But what if you are a fit and healthy 60+ with a comfortable income Tanith?

1. Can the country afford to support that person to swim free at such a time as this?

2. Do you think that a fit and well-off 60 year-old should be allowed to swim free when say her 58 year-old neighbour, who is on a low income and has osteoarthritis (who would benefit from swimming just as much if not more) has to pay?

The trouble with Labour's idea is that it was too arbitary! Just like bloomin' prescription charge exemptions (which are long overdue for some rational thinking). Why should it be that say a 40 year old hypothyroid person can get every single item they are prescribed on the NHS for free...whilst a similar aged person with a life threatening heart condition can not?

But back to the subject of free swimming, let me ask how many people would not be prepared to pay say £1 for a discounted swim...or maybe even less per swim if they were a frequent swimmer and wished to purchase some sort of multi-swim or season ticket?

And of those who would grumble, who would happily pay much more than £1 for one drink at the pub, some cigarettes, or something similar so proving that they are not actually living on the bread-line with no surplus money to benefit their own health? I do not wish to cause offence and I am not accusing people here of having the same mentality...but there are those that do have that mentality. Just like the mums who drag their kids to A&E and waste staff time - not because there is anything really wrong, but they've just run out of Calpol for general purpose use when their child is a bit grouchy...and they want it on the NHS because they claim they can't afford to buy it...despite pushing the cigs further into their designer handbag.

And I work in healthcare Hannah - I'm not denying that swimming has benefits for most people - but those benefits do not begin and end with kids and the over 60's. Politicians need to target their ideas more specifically - "kids and over 60's" is too broad-brush given the state of the economy. And what about the rest of the population who chose to pay to swim who arrive at the pool after work to find it crammed with kids many of whom are mostly just messing about and doing very little swimming.

Our health is not the sole responsibility of the government - it is also very much the responsibility of the individual. For those not on a low income, if we have to buy the food that sustains us, why should we feel any differently about being expected to invest financially in our health too - through healthy eating and exercise

dizzie

meerkat2007 wrote: »

Tell that to the students who leave university loaded with debt, thanks to a generation of politicians who just left with degrees - and no, I was never at university, so I don't fall into either camp.

Things change. I'm single, working and childless - that means I get to pay for everyone else, and I would rather pay for the older generation than someone else's kids.

Meerkat, I said you had been educated. I didn't say higher education. Most people (except those who chose to home educate or send their kids to private school) do go to school and receive some education courtesy of the taxpayer. And just think of this... one day (presuming we still have a state pension that is being funded hand to mouth by the younger generation who are paying their NI)...it'll be other people's kids, who are in effect, supporting you.;)

meerkat2007

dizzie wrote: »

Meerkat, I said you had been educated. I didn't say higher education. Most people (except those who chose to home educate or send their kids to private school) do go to school and receive some education courtesy of the taxpayer. And just think of this... one day (presuming we still have a state pension that is being funded hand to mouth by the younger generation who are paying their NI)...it'll be other people's kids, who are in effect, supporting you.;)

Higher education changed - it's not written in tablets of stone that basic education can't or won't change.

And if I wasn't supporting them now, I could afford to save for my own retirement.

dizzie

meerkat2007 wrote: »

...if I wasn't supporting them now, I could afford to save for my own retirement.

Well Meerkat - if we didn't support children to some degree through the provision of free basic education etc, then we wouldn't have the next generation of taxpayers to keep the economy going and pay for education, health, defence, pensions and goodness knows what else.

If we could all pay less tax, we'd all have more to save...but not everyone is so disciplined. I had a work colleague once who had a very good family income...and the philosophy that she would live a queen now and save nothing at all so that she could be dependant on the state and get every benefit she could on retirement - very irresponsible in my opinion!

Then, besides the irresponsible people who could save but chose not to, there are the misfortunate people who suddenly find themselves at the mercy of the state through sudden ill-health / disability...who, even if taxation was much lower, would almost definitely not be able to financially support themselves for the rest of their lives.

The truth is, you and I just don't know what could be round the corner Meerkat...so although I'm frugal and save what I can in the hope that I'll be as financially independant as possible in retirement...I am glad to be supporting the next generation of taxpayers (so that they can support me if my circumstances require it later on )....as well as the pensioners of today

Having said that - I do think that today, Osbourne should have scrapped child benefit for higher earners who don't rely on it. I'd put myself in that category. Although bringing up children isn't cheap - I can afford to pay for what my two boys need without government help...and I think that rather than paying me child benefit, the money could be better used elsewhere at such a difficult time.

margaretclare

Having said that - I do think that today, Osbourne should have scrapped child benefit for higher earners who don't rely on it. I'd put myself in that category. Although bringing up children isn't cheap - I can afford to pay for what my two boys need without government help...and I think that rather than paying me child benefit, the money could be better used elsewhere at such a difficult time.

I listened to the Budget speech in full. He said that he has considered means-testing child benefit, but given that he wants to cut public spending, such means-testing would mean the setting up of a whole new department to deal with it, not what he wants to do.

Errata

margaretclare wrote: »

I listened to the Budget speech in full. He said that he has considered means-testing child benefit, but given that he wants to cut public spending, such means-testing would mean the setting up of a whole new department to deal with it, not what he wants to do.

It would cost more than it would save. Ros Altman, pensions guru and advisor to Labour, is firmly of the opinion that the money saved by not means testing and administering pension credit would fund a pension increase for all pensioners equal to the average pension credit currently being dished out.

margaretclare

Errata wrote: »

It would cost more than it would save. Ros Altman, pensions guru and advisor to Labour, is firmly of the opinion that the money saved by not means testing and administering pension credit would fund a pension increase for all pensioners equal to the average pension credit currently being dished out.

Yes, that's what he said, it would be too costly.

So what does Ros Altman propose about pension credit? Get rid of it altogether and give everyone more money? I'd drink to that.

Errata

That's what Altman suggests - the cost would be the same and more would benefit. Labour didn't like the idea.