Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Better-off Pensioners 'encouraged' to give fuel allowance to charity
Comments
-
Clegg wants to means test it. Cameron promised that he would not. Perhaps the deal is that if a minister appeals for "wealthy" pensioners to donate it, then Clegg won't rock the boat about if for a while. Such is the apparently facile nature of coalition politics that one would not be surprised.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Clegg wants to means test it. Cameron promised that he would not. Perhaps the deal is that if a minister appeals for "wealthy" pensioners to donate it, then Clegg won't rock the boat about if for a while. Such is the apparently facile nature of coalition politics that one would not be surprised.
The cost of means testing would no doubt be more than any saving and many people would not claim it because of means testing.
Why not simply tax it if it takes income above a personal allowance?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
I think that is probably how they got rich in the first place, and I know a few people like this who would not part with very much, but I did notice that they were never really happy with their wealth as they were so feared of losing it. I think that money and wealth cannot buy happiness.
Money can't buy you happiness but it can buy you a better class of misery
Woody Allen0 -
I think that is probably how they got rich in the first place, and I know a few people like this who would not part with very much, but I did notice that they were never really happy with their wealth as they were so feared of losing it. I think that money and wealth cannot buy happiness.
Of course wealth cannot buy happiness, but is there any evidence to suggest that wealth facilitates unhappiness? If not I would rather be happy and rich than happy and poor.
Of course the question you are suggesting is would someone rather be happy but poor rather than miserable but rich, obviously the former would be the choice. But why does someone have to be miserable just because they are rich? I don't see why misery and wealth have to be joined at the hip.Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
chucknorris wrote: »Of course wealth cannot buy happiness, but is there any evidence to suggest that wealth facilitates unhappiness? If not I would rather be happy and rich than happy and poor.
Of course the question you are suggesting is would someone rather be happy but poor rather than miserable but rich, obviously the former would be the choice. But why does someone have to be miserable just because they are rich? I don't see why misery and wealth have to be joined at the hip.
A member of our family who was always happy going to his work, payed up his mortgage then decided, being a single person would sell his property and invest in stock and shares.
With eight years to go to his retirement he gave up his job, for no reason other than he was always squabbling with workmates, so here we have a person with over a quarter of a million pounds available to him, so he then rented a property.
He has now gone into a way of life that is totally the opposite he is so miserable to what he was before and said that he now is a recluse waiting for his pension. So this is my example of misery and wealth that I find quite sad.0 -
That shouldn't have to be encouraged, they shouldn't be getting it in the first place. If they are going to means text child benefit, they need to means test winter fuel allowance. Horrific double standards.0
-
A member of our family who was always happy going to his work, payed up his mortgage then decided, being a single person would sell his property and invest in stock and shares.
With eight years to go to his retirement he gave up his job, for no reason other than he was always squabbling with workmates, so here we have a person with over a quarter of a million pounds available to him, so he then rented a property.
He has now gone into a way of life that is totally the opposite he is so miserable to what he was before and said that he now is a recluse waiting for his pension. So this is my example of misery and wealth that I find quite sad.
Although (as you say) it is sad, a sample size of one person is hardly conclusive evidence (that wealthy and misery go hand in hand) though is it?
Plus I have to say that 0.25M and renting with no property equity isn't what I would call wealthy (although I accept the term is very subjective).
EDIT: Back on subject, I imagine that people who donate to charity do so (like us) because of strong personal feelings not simply because a politician suggested it, although I do applaud the suggestion.Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
chucknorris wrote: »Although (as you say) it is sad, a sample size of one person is hardly conclusive evidence (that wealthy and misery go hand in hand) though is it?
Plus I have to say that 0.25M and renting with no property equity isn't what I would call wealthy (although I accept the term is very subjective).
EDIT: Back on subject, I imagine that people who donate to charity do so (like us) because of strong personal feelings not simply because a politician suggested it, although I do applaud the suggestion.
I agree with what you are saying but to a lay person like myself, who has never claimed benefit all his life, 0.25M is a fortune but that is only a drop in the ocean.
Our family have great pleasure in donating to charity, as do many others ike yourself.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »The cost of means testing would no doubt be more than any saving and many people would not claim it because of means testing.
Why not simply tax it if it takes income above a personal allowance?
You are right, means testing was not the ideal way of putting it and I assume that Clegg wants something based around tax breaks for the less well off, perhaps with an actual handout only to those who don't pay any tax.
As so often is the case Labour started the problem - by introducing this indiscriminate handout in the first place. I suspect that they didn't want to set any precedents regarding means testing or tax breaks, in case anyone started to talk about things like child benefits in the same vein.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »You are right, means testing was not the ideal way of putting it and I assume that Clegg wants something based around tax breaks for the less well off, perhaps with an actual handout only to those who don't pay any tax.
As so often is the case Labour started the problem - by introducing this indiscriminate handout in the first place. I suspect that they didn't want to set any precedents regarding means testing or tax breaks, in case anyone started to talk about things like child benefits in the same vein.
WFA was a recognition of spiralling, but nowhere like to day, energy prices that were /are having a disproportionate affect on a large number of pensioners.
Pensions couldn't be increased, across the board, for political reasons.
Pensions have fallen behind the cost of living (for pensioners) for many years. Council tax increases often obliterating any increases, before energy.
It should have been taxable all along."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 346.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 451.1K Spending & Discounts
- 238.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 613.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 174.5K Life & Family
- 251.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards