Tax Credits

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I see you are twisting everything again to make your argument. It seems you always have to make your argument by twisting what someone has said.

A) I've not said I'm upset about free school dinners.
I never said it's worse, better or equal to pension rebates.

You've had to suggest all that to make your argument work.

All I did do was respond to your claim that all someone was doing was "delaying gratification". Clearly, with all the working out done at the start of this thread it's absolutely nothing to do with delaying gratification.

I've made my argument without twisting anything. Maybe you could do the same?

Of course it's delaying gratification. To make something like this work you have to live frugally on a low income now. The gratification comes (after a delay) when our intrepid rent seeker finds themselves with a very large tax advantaged pension pot.

Most people are unwilling to do the same. Personally I think it's because they don't want to live on such a low income rather than moral superiority.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

If I opt to drop hours to lose working tax credits and thus qualify for free school meals it will cost me money and be done to get funds to the childrens' schools which my kids will not benefit from directly.

The pupil premium is paid to the school for having disadvantaged children on their books. It helps direct money, specifically towards disadvantaged children to help them deal with many issues that arise.

Abuse of this system will also result in the total payments being looked at and possibly reduced.

The funding can only really be spent on those who are eligible. So your children will suddenly be eligible for extra help (they won't necessarily get it), possibly putting them above their peers. Help which they can clearly get from home that others may not be able to.

Whichever way its cut, it's taking money out of a system that was intended to genuinely help those of lesser means. Any additional money taken out of the tax system simply put means less money for other things.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Most people are unwilling to do the same. Personally I think it's because they don't want to live on such a low income rather than moral superiority.

I believe you are wrong.

So challenge for you if you genuinely believe your words. Put a poll up.

I think you will find yourself surprised at peoples morals and pride in paying their way.

michaels

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I believe you are wrong.

So challenge for you if you genuinely believe your words. Put a poll up.

I think you will find yourself surprised at peoples morals and pride in paying their way.

But very few people pay there own way when you take into account benefits in kind like education, the NHS, state pension, defence, police etc. I suspect that overall I will not only 'pay my own way' but also pay for several others who come no where near doing so. If most people are blind to how much they are actually costing the net contributors that is fine but it is not something that I feel gives moral superiority.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

But very few people pay there own way when you take into account benefits in kind like education, the NHS, state pension, defence, police etc.

None of those, bar possibly health, can be said to be spending on an individual which the individual has chosen to manipulate for their personal gain.

You can't honestly believe that because people may make more use of the police (as an example) or live in an area such as Dover which has more defence spending that it entitles you to forget any sense of morality and take as much as you can from a system you do not need to use?

To be blunt, I'm not "upset" as you made out. I hope you take this as intended rather than an insult, but you have been completely frank throughout the discussion...

I find the greed almost insulting.

And with that, I've made my point and I think I will leave it there, other than to say if I were doing this, I wouldn't plaster it all over a forum!!

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I believe you are wrong.

So challenge for you if you genuinely believe your words. Put a poll up.

I think you will find yourself surprised at peoples morals and pride in paying their way.

So now the delayed gratification has been explained you're disagreeing about something else?

Not sure what a poll would show. What do you think the question should be?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

So now the delayed gratification has been explained you're disagreeing about something else?

Not sure what a poll would show. What do you think the question should be?

You haven't explained anything. You have given your extremely hypocritical opinion.

I'd take your point at face value if you hadn't gone on so much about "subsidies" and how it's wrong for people to have a reduced rent. How it's wrong to build council housing to house people on the lowest incomes. How these people have made "poor decisions" and now reap the outcomes of those poor decisions.

The disdain you have for lower income people getting help with housing costs and rents (unless that help funds a private BTL of course) puts you completely at odds with your statements here about reducing your income and taking as much as you can out of the welfare system and how it is just "delaying gratitude".

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And with that, I've made my point and I think I will leave it there, other than to say if I were doing this, I wouldn't plaster it all over a forum!!

I like how people feel able to share details on this forum.

If nothing else it's an eye opener. You clearly didn't know fully how the rules work anD neither did I.

We've learnt something.

michaels

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And with that, I've made my point and I think I will leave it there, other than to say if I were doing this, I wouldn't plaster it all over a forum!!

Thanks Graham. One reason I don't earn a lot more is I will always say what I think rather than suck up. I am happy with what I am doing and therefore I do not feel any need to hide it. If I did feel the need to hide it then it would by a pretty good signal that I shouldn't be doing it.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You haven't explained anything. You have given your extremely hypocritical opinion.

I'd take your point at face value if you hadn't gone on so much about "subsidies" and how it's wrong for people to have a reduced rent. How it's wrong to build council housing to house people on the lowest incomes. How these people have made "poor decisions" and now reap the outcomes of those poor decisions.

The disdain you have for lower income people getting help with housing costs and rents (unless that help funds a private BTL of course) puts you completely at odds with your statements here about reducing your income and taking as much as you can out of the welfare system is just "delaying gratitude".

I disapprove of rent seeking because it's a symptom of an over large state and creates inefficiency. Of course, as I often say, I have no problems with my own rent seeking.

Some people lack the self awareness to see their own hypocrisy - not me.