PIP Resignation

GlasweJen

Quite honestly I think they should never have done away with the 10% tax band, allowing people to earn more and more without paying any income tax at all was stupid but it will take sensible tax policies plus sensible spending policies to "reduce the deficit" but it seems monkeys run parliament.

markmarkmark

What get's me is Osborne's trumpeted reduction in Corporation Tax every budget, with no one pointing out the big story about Corporation Tax is the big multinationals find ways of not paying it anyway, and when found out come up with "sweetheart" deals with the treasury giving them an effective rate of 2 or 3% anyway :rotfl:

Richie-from-the-Boro

A reduction in company tax means an immediate shortfall in UK GOV revenues which must be addressed by an immediate raising the level of other taxes, income tax, VAT etc. The alternative for the nasty political party is of course cutting government spending and by definition the level of public services.

Osbournes argument that it produces more investment, profits and private sector jobs which will more than off-set the reduced company tax revenue, but it clearly hasn't has it. May 2010 was 6 years ago and even with the inventive so called apprenticeships, zero hour contracts and minimum wage its produced sod all for our people and sod all for the treasury by way of increases tax's.

The banking sector caused the recession, and is ultimately responsible so we paid them mi££ions in individual bonuses in addition to bailing the banks because the actually run the world and politicians are mere tools of bankers and they know it. From Obama to Cameron they have an all powerful master who calls the shots. Investors global and otherwise get money from banks and banks get money from pensions. Pensioners pay and have each already paid for 50+ years. Taxpayers pay governments and GOV mainly use it for their own self-serving ends, and a large slice on supporting low wage / tax credit subsidies for the poor low paid slaves who work for these companies.

The 25 bi££ion pa lost to tax avoidance plus the 70 bi££ion in tax evasion by large companies and wealthy individuals can be added to the 26 bi££ion that's going uncollected. That 120 bi££ion is 3/4 of our annual deficit - why then are we going after pensioners, disabled and other vulnerable groups / people when all UK GOV's since the 60's have kept well clear of the real cancer to the UK economy - closing the tax gap - and forcing megga corporations to pay a fair share of the UK earnings ? There are alternatives if the political class grasp the nettle instead of the expense account.

Bashing the above economic groups has not worked, we the UK are on exactly the same value index as US - Finland - Germany - Japan - Hong Kong and the Netherlands. Do something about productivity and wages by reducing the taxpayers need to subsidise companies and corporations and take us out of the 80's GOV imposed full speed tertiary sector, maybe, just maybe people will feel like making more widgets with a resulting rise in GDP.

cyclonebri1

GlasweJen wrote: »

I don't think there should be any protected groups but it's unfair to exclude pensioners from welfare reform based solely on age.

So lets be fair all round.
Lets suggest any pensioner in the higher rate tax band recieves no benefits??????



Look, I need to explain myself here.
At that income £40k, no assistance is needed.

So how do you get to that level of pensionable income???

Well if you earn average pennies and put away about 15% of your earnings you may at say 60 years of age have a pension pot of about £400K.

What will that gain you?
Well it might make 20K per year, does that make a pensioner wealthy??:A:A:A:A


Our present government assures us that we, the new old agers will live to be 99, they fail to accept that most of us graffters worked during old times, the 60's and 70's, and are knackered by 60 and hence reliance on the benefit system.

GlasweJen

I'll never live to see a pension but they insist that I pay into one.

I'd like to say remove the "extras" from higher rate tax paying pensioners but then you're penalising the people who put away for retirement.

I do think pension credit is unfair, it's a disincentive to have your own pension. I think there should be state pension for everyone over X years equal to JSA or ESA WRAG, a generous top up for people with contributions paid from employment and a less generous top up for people with more than 50% of their contributions being linked to a benefits claim. If that's not enough then apply for top ups like housing benefit/LHA, council tax benefit etc.

But then I also don't think the state should pay for more than 2 children's worth of child benefit/tax credit and that if you can't get a job after 3 years on job seekers allowance you should be cut off and not allowed to claim again until you've paid another 2 years national insurance.

Richie-from-the-Boro

More info on John Slater's URL="https://campaigningforchange.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/dwp-foi-decision-_corrected_.pdf"]1T[/URL FOI in #5, the easier to understand bones of it are here for anyone interested.

As an aside and because IDS has now exited stage door left, the new treasury shoe-shine Stephen Crabb's proclamations on his views on disability and welfare are here, might be of particular interest to the UC vulnerable.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Secret clampdown on benefits appeals [John Slater's FOI request] after the May 2015 election, the DWP tried to stop the FOI report being made public. 50% Fit for Work decisions being overturned by tribunal, so GOV proposed :

- ‘charging for appeals’
- ‘narrowing the scope of the tribunal’
- ‘reducing appeal time length from 12 months to three’
- and ‘remove payment of ESA (Employment Support Allowance) pending appeal’.