Willetts targets the older generations

GreatApe

Could say everyone pays 45% income tax

The government just gives a tax credit to those who earn
£0-£11,500 of 45% of their earnings
£11,500 - £45,000 of 25% of their earnings
£45,000 - 150,000 of 5% of their earnings

Pennywise

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

We seriously need to go back to the days when you had to get very high grades to get to uni.

We also need to go back to the days when you had to get very high marks to get good grades as GCSE and A level. Getting over half the questions wrong (sometimes even as high as 60-70% wrong) and still be given a "good pass" grade is just about as crazy as you can get.

westernpromise

Depends what you're doing though. My daughter's doing maths IGCSE and it doesn't strike me as a pushover. In particular, I didn't know that there's a formula from trigonometry for working out the area of any triangle. Came as news to me; if I'd ever done that, I might not now remember how to do it, like calculus, but I'd remember that it could be done.

lisyloo

This means it is OK for the 60% who get everything for nothing to hate those who pay for it all, as I understand it.

Why do you understand that the net takers hate the contributors? do you mean some are jealous?

The 60% are NET takers that does not mean they get "everything" neither does it does it mean they pay "nothing".

Lets take someone who is in a nusing home that's funded by the LA.
They get the cheapest nursing homes on the market and they contribute their income (minus only £25), so being a NET taker is not the same as contributing nothing.

Why do you think such people hate those who contribute and aren't grateful?

We are very grateful to social services, the local authorities, the NHS and tax payers in general who fund the net takers in our family. They did not set up the welfare state which in the case of the elderly grossly under-estimated their longevity in their earlier lives. They did not expect be kept alive so long and were told in 1942 that the welfare state would take care of them to the grave and their employer did not offer them auto-enrollment in the 1940s. These people who may have worked all their lives are not to blame because the state decided to keep them alive longer than it planned to when taking contributions. That is the responsibility of the state who did not forsee the large increases in longevity.

Why do you think people who live on benefits get "everything".
In general they get poor/slum housing and only just about enough to live on.

Arklight

The fact that incomes are so unequal that a majority of people are paid less than they pay in is most of the problem, and another thing the Right doesn't understand.


If one person has a million pounds and pays another person with nothing £1 to serve them, than another £1 through taxation to stop them starving to death thereby meaning they wouldn't be able to do that job, who is benefiting most?


Anyway, I assume all the head nodding that the solution to boomers taking out more than they pay in, is to bar the young from going to university means this thread is derailed with the usual right wing whining, rather than discussion about an actual issue...

Enterprise_1701C

Arklight wrote: »

The fact that incomes are so unequal that a majority of people are paid less than they pay in is most of the problem, and another thing the Right doesn't understand.


If one person has a million pounds and pays another person with nothing £1 to serve them, than another £1 through taxation to stop them starving to death thereby meaning they wouldn't be able to do that job, who is benefiting most?


Anyway, I assume all the head nodding that the solution to boomers taking out more than they pay in, is to bar the young from going to university means this thread is derailed with the usual right wing whining, rather than discussion about an actual issue...

Nothing stopping you moving to a communist state, sure they would be glad to have you.

Arklight

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Nothing stopping you moving to a communist state, sure they would be glad to have you.

If you think paying a fair wage and social democracy is communism then you need to revisit the educational opportunities you all hate so much.

economic

Why bother with all this debating and arguing? Just do what!!!8217;s in the best interest for you and your loved ones. It!!!8217;s as simple as that. They should matter more Then anyone else.

mollycat

Arklight wrote: »

The fact that incomes are so unequal that a majority of people are paid less than they pay in is most of the problem, and another thing the Right doesn't understand.


If one person has a million pounds and pays another person with nothing £1 to serve them, than another £1 through taxation to stop them starving to death thereby meaning they wouldn't be able to do that job, who is benefiting most?


Anyway, I assume all the head nodding that the solution to boomers taking out more than they pay in, is to bar the young from going to university means this thread is derailed with the usual right wing whining, rather than discussion about an actual issue...

The Doctor will see you now Mr Arklight.....:rotfl:

westernpromise

I love how, on a money saving website, any suggestion that the state should do what individuals have to - live within one's means - is greeted with total bewilderment by the left.

For them, the only question is how to rob people they envy. There's simply no possibility the state takes and spends too much. There are no good spending cuts.

Laughable.