Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2023 10:52:29 GMT
lol.....laughing at the anger and inaccuracy. What about those who refuse to work for more than 16 hours a week (details previously posted) because they get tens of thousands in benefits from the taxpayer Do they ''need'' taxpayer funded hand outs? How is that far when their tax free (higher than average) income is also funded by those on a lower income who you want to disqualify from OAP pension This showed that a single-mother-of-two, paying £2,000 a month in rent in London, would receive £36,663 a year in tax-free Universal Credit if she worked 16 hours a week at £9.50 an hour – bringing her gross income to £44,567.60.www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/09/britains-jobless-crisis-fuelled-benefits-loophole-encourages/I almost missed this because you quoted yourself in response to me so I received no notification, lol. But clearly it is me you were attempting to respond to. As for those who supposedly refuse to work more than 16 hours, that's a bit of a swerve on your part, and tends to assume they all have the opportunity of doing so. Not everyone on 16 hours or less will. The problem of course is the way the de facto benefits trap works, with extortionate private rents pushing the amount you need to earn to escape that trap out of reach for those on low hourly rates. The way it works is that for every pound you take home you lose 55p off your universal credit. For every tenner earned you only take home an extra £4.50. Once you hit the tax and NI brackets you lose 32p n the pound in tax then 55% of what's left. In effect this leaves you taking home only an extra £3.06p for every tenner earned. If you cannot see how soul destroyingly disincentivising that is, you are blind to reality. Especially when you factor in extra costs for more hours like extra travelling costs, added packed lunch costs and so on. You are clearly expecting people to work for peanuts. That is not human nature. The welfare system designed to make work pay needs to be far less punitive in its rate of clawback. And people would find it far easier to earn enough to escape the benefits trap if rents were a lot more reasonable. Almost invariably, the largest portion by far of a universal credit pay out is rent money. I am fortunate in living in a social housing flat with a much lower rent than in the private sector, so I can easily earn enough to get well clear of the benefits trap. Colleagues who rent privately paying rents typically two or even three times the level of mine can never earn enough to escape the benefits trap and are thus punitively disincentivised from working overtime by it. As a society we need to work with the grain of human nature. Labouring hard and long hours for someone else without reasonable reward is against human nature. However, those caught in this trap are at least working 16 hours, which is rather more than the average pensioner. And all I am suggesting is that those reasonably well off pensioners do not need taxpayer funded handouts, just as reasonably well off working people don't. If we want to encourage poorer working people to work more than 16 hours it needs to be made worth their while. After all, if they tried to tempt retired people back into work do you think any would bother for an offering of only 3 quid an hour? You wouldn't return to work for that so why do you think anyone of working age would be willing to work for that? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 13, 2023 10:59:31 GMT
Well perhaps it would help if you stopped going off at a tangent. Failure to paint a rainbow does not cost anyone anything - failure to support our pensioners costs them dying. But somehow you believe that spending to be equivalent.. That is nonsense and typical of your different rules for you and for everyone else. No one is suggesting leaving pensioners in life threatening destitution. We are merely saying that if they are well off enough not to need taxpayer funbded handouts they shouldnt get them, and the withdrawl of them is also cost free, unless you include the withdrawal of unneeeded handouts as a cost. I detect the whiff of selfishness simply because it might threaten to be a cost to you in terms of a lost handout even though you don't need it They're not different rules, they're the same for everyone and it's often true that making exceptios to rules does not reduce outgoings. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2023 11:06:42 GMT
That is nonsense and typical of your different rules for you and for everyone else. No one is suggesting leaving pensioners in life threatening destitution. We are merely saying that if they are well off enough not to need taxpayer funbded handouts they shouldnt get them, and the withdrawl of them is also cost free, unless you include the withdrawal of unneeeded handouts as a cost. I detect the whiff of selfishness simply because it might threaten to be a cost to you in terms of a lost handout even though you don't need it They're not different rules, they're the same for everyone and it's often true that making exceptios to rules does not reduce outgoings. It is different rules for pensioners and for everyone else in your eyes in that you seem to want to defend every handout going for your age group regardless of how little some of you need it, whilst being much more critical of any help for working age people. That is the double standard. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 13, 2023 11:24:44 GMT
Well perhaps it would help if you stopped going off at a tangent. Failure to paint a rainbow does not cost anyone anything - failure to support our pensioners costs them dying. But somehow you believe that spending to be equivalent.. That is nonsense and typical of your different rules for you and for everyone else. No one is suggesting leaving pensioners in life threatening destitution. We are merely saying that if they are well off enough not to need taxpayer funbded handouts they shouldnt get them, and the withdrawl of them is also cost free, unless you include the withdrawal of unneeeded handouts as a cost. I detect the whiff of selfishness simply because it might threaten to be a cost to you in terms of a lost handout even though you don't need it We have been through this before. The State Pension is a contract between the Government and the Individual - if the Individual pays the Government enough money over 'X' number of years the Government will then provide a pension for your old age. If the suggestion is that the Government does not provide this pension the individual paid for them they should return the contributions the individual has made. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Feb 13, 2023 11:26:08 GMT
And incidentally it is a little over £30k. I certainly don't think any pensioner household with an income at that level or above needs taxpayer funded hand outs.What about those who refuse to work for more than 16 hours a week (details previously posted) because they get tens of thousands in benefits from the taxpayer Do they ''need'' taxpayer funded hand outs? How is that far when their tax free (higher than average) income is also funded by those on a lower income who you want to disqualify from OAP pension This showed that a single-mother-of-two, paying £2,000 a month in rent in London, would receive £36,663 a year in tax-free Universal Credit if she worked 16 hours a week at £9.50 an hour – bringing her gross income to £44,567.60.www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/09/britains-jobless-crisis-fuelled-benefits-loophole-encourages/ I almost missed this because you quoted yourself in response to me so I received no notification, lol. But clearly it is me you were attempting to respond to. As for those who supposedly refuse to work more than 16 hours, that's a bit of a swerve on your part, and tends to assume they all have the opportunity of doing so. Not everyone on 16 hours or less will. The problem of course is the way the de facto benefits trap works, with extortionate private rents pushing the amount you need to earn to escape that trap out of reach for those on low hourly rates. The way it works is that for every pound you take home you lose 55p off your universal credit. For every tenner earned you only take home an extra £4.50. Once you hit the tax and NI brackets you lose 32p n the pound in tax then 55% of what's left. In effect this leaves you taking home only an extra £3.06p for every tenner earned. If you cannot see how soul destroyingly disincentivising that is, you are blind to reality. Especially when you factor in extra costs for more hours like extra travelling costs, added packed lunch costs and so on. You are clearly expecting people to work for peanuts. That is not human nature. The welfare system designed to make work pay needs to be far less punitive in its rate of clawback. And people would find it far easier to earn enough to escape the benefits trap if rents were a lot more reasonable. Almost invariably, the largest portion by far of a universal credit pay out is rent money. I am fortunate in living in a social housing flat with a much lower rent than in the private sector, so I can easily earn enough to get well clear of the benefits trap. Colleagues who rent privately paying rents typically two or even three times the level of mine can never earn enough to escape the benefits trap and are thus punitively disincentivised from working overtime by it. As a society we need to work with the grain of human nature. Labouring hard and long hours for someone else without reasonable reward is against human nature. However, those caught in this trap are at least working 16 hours, which is rather more than the average pensioner. And all I am suggesting is that those reasonably well off pensioners do not need taxpayer funded handouts, just as reasonably well off working people don't. If we want to encourage poorer working people to work more than 16 hours it needs to be made worth their while. After all, if they tried to tempt retired people back into work do you think any would bother for an offering of only 3 quid an hour? You wouldn't return to work for that so why do you think anyone of working age would be willing to work for that? OK All standard lefty swerves and dodges about extra ham sandwiches, bus fares and 'evil' landlords etc noted . Your position is clear , you don't see any issue with disqualifying pensioners from state pension if they have an income of £30k (and still paying tax) and those OK who refuse to work for more than 16 hours a week (there's plenty of work - employers are crying out for more staff) so they can still get full benefits, trousering a tax free income in the mid £40000s. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 13, 2023 11:36:01 GMT
They're not different rules, they're the same for everyone and it's often true that making exceptios to rules does not reduce outgoings. It is different rules for pensioners and for everyone else in your eyes in that you seem to want to defend every handout going for your age group regardless of how little some of you need it, whilst being much more critical of any help for working age people. That is the double standard. You are suffering from the left-wing sickness of envy, you think many pensioner sponge off the state when the reality is the state openly provide them with help, unless, like many, they don't apply for help. I can hardly defend handouts when, although I know many pensioners, I don't know what additional benefits they may get added to their pensions probably because I don't ask them. However, I do know a number of working age spongers, people who are registered with some sort of disablement people who are paid as carers. We have them living in our village, some who are working on the side and even running a business. I am a carer but I have never applied for assistance and when social services paid an unannounced visit some years ago, they went out of my front door faster than they came in; they've never been back. I think it's about time you drew your horns in and stopped charging round these boards making unfounded and erroneous judgements of people you neither know nor with whom you have any axe to grind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2023 11:40:03 GMT
That is nonsense and typical of your different rules for you and for everyone else. No one is suggesting leaving pensioners in life threatening destitution. We are merely saying that if they are well off enough not to need taxpayer funbded handouts they shouldnt get them, and the withdrawl of them is also cost free, unless you include the withdrawal of unneeeded handouts as a cost. I detect the whiff of selfishness simply because it might threaten to be a cost to you in terms of a lost handout even though you don't need it We have been through this before. The State Pension is a contract between the Government and the Individual - if the Individual pays the Government enough money over 'X' number of years the Government will then provide a pension for your old age. If the suggestion is that the Government does not provide this pension the individual paid for them they should return the contributions the individual has made. It is not the state pension I am talking about but other taxpayer funded handouts that the better off ones clearly don't need, which is extravagantly wasteful of taxpayers' money. But that's ok because you get it, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 13, 2023 11:41:50 GMT
We have been through this before. The State Pension is a contract between the Government and the Individual - if the Individual pays the Government enough money over 'X' number of years the Government will then provide a pension for your old age. If the suggestion is that the Government does not provide this pension the individual paid for them they should return the contributions the individual has made. It is not the state pension I am talking about but other taxpayer funded handouts that the better off ones clearly don't need, which is extravagantly wasteful of taxpayers' money. But that's ok because you get it, right? I'm a taxpayer, many pensioners are taxpayers, usually on well less that £30K pa. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2023 11:45:22 GMT
I almost missed this because you quoted yourself in response to me so I received no notification, lol. But clearly it is me you were attempting to respond to. As for those who supposedly refuse to work more than 16 hours, that's a bit of a swerve on your part, and tends to assume they all have the opportunity of doing so. Not everyone on 16 hours or less will. The problem of course is the way the de facto benefits trap works, with extortionate private rents pushing the amount you need to earn to escape that trap out of reach for those on low hourly rates. The way it works is that for every pound you take home you lose 55p off your universal credit. For every tenner earned you only take home an extra £4.50. Once you hit the tax and NI brackets you lose 32p n the pound in tax then 55% of what's left. In effect this leaves you taking home only an extra £3.06p for every tenner earned. If you cannot see how soul destroyingly disincentivising that is, you are blind to reality. Especially when you factor in extra costs for more hours like extra travelling costs, added packed lunch costs and so on. You are clearly expecting people to work for peanuts. That is not human nature. The welfare system designed to make work pay needs to be far less punitive in its rate of clawback. And people would find it far easier to earn enough to escape the benefits trap if rents were a lot more reasonable. Almost invariably, the largest portion by far of a universal credit pay out is rent money. I am fortunate in living in a social housing flat with a much lower rent than in the private sector, so I can easily earn enough to get well clear of the benefits trap. Colleagues who rent privately paying rents typically two or even three times the level of mine can never earn enough to escape the benefits trap and are thus punitively disincentivised from working overtime by it. As a society we need to work with the grain of human nature. Labouring hard and long hours for someone else without reasonable reward is against human nature. However, those caught in this trap are at least working 16 hours, which is rather more than the average pensioner. And all I am suggesting is that those reasonably well off pensioners do not need taxpayer funded handouts, just as reasonably well off working people don't. If we want to encourage poorer working people to work more than 16 hours it needs to be made worth their while. After all, if they tried to tempt retired people back into work do you think any would bother for an offering of only 3 quid an hour? You wouldn't return to work for that so why do you think anyone of working age would be willing to work for that? OK All standard lefty swerves and dodges about extra ham sandwiches, bus fares and 'evil' landlords etc noted . Your position is clear , you don't see any issue with disqualifying pensioners from state pension if they have an income of £30k (and still paying tax) and those who refuse to work for more than 16 hours a week (there's plenty of work - employers are crying out for more staff) so they can still get full benefits, trousering a tax free income in the mid £40000s. I am not talking about pensions but other taxpayer handouts to pensioners. And you yourself epitomise the double standard in supporting this whilst at the same time resenting all help for the working poor, some of whom may well end up wiping your arse for for a pittance in your dotage. The attitude of so many of the old gits around here positive reek of double standards, hypocrisy and a sense of entitlement. Yours is typical. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2023 11:48:41 GMT
It is different rules for pensioners and for everyone else in your eyes in that you seem to want to defend every handout going for your age group regardless of how little some of you need it, whilst being much more critical of any help for working age people. That is the double standard. You are suffering from the left-wing sickness of envy, you think many pensioner sponge off the state when the reality is the state openly provide them with help, unless, like many, they don't apply for help. I can hardly defend handouts when, although I know many pensioners, I don't know what additional benefits they may get added to their pensions probably because I don't ask them. However, I do know a number of working age spongers, people who are registered with some sort of disablement people who are paid as carers. We have them living in our village, some who are working on the side and even running a business. I am a carer but I have never applied for assistance and when social services paid an unannounced visit some years ago, they went out of my front door faster than they came in; they've never been back. I think it's about time you drew your horns in and stopped charging round these boards making unfounded and erroneous judgements of people you neither know nor with whom you have any axe to grind. I speak as I find. And do you need the winter fuel allowance you are given? genuinely need it? And if not do you keep the money anyway and defend your right to it? If so, what makes you better than a welfare scrounger with a sense of entitlement? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2023 11:53:04 GMT
It is not the state pension I am talking about but other taxpayer funded handouts that the better off ones clearly don't need, which is extravagantly wasteful of taxpayers' money. But that's ok because you get it, right? I'm a taxpayer, many pensioners are taxpayers, usually on well less that £30K pa. It's the same for working age people too you know, many of us not enjoying taxpayer funded handouts either. And unlike you pensioners, we also pay NI. And any pensioner with enough of an income to be paying income tax is unlikely to be destitute. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 13, 2023 12:05:54 GMT
You are suffering from the left-wing sickness of envy, you think many pensioner sponge off the state when the reality is the state openly provide them with help, unless, like many, they don't apply for help. I can hardly defend handouts when, although I know many pensioners, I don't know what additional benefits they may get added to their pensions probably because I don't ask them. However, I do know a number of working age spongers, people who are registered with some sort of disablement people who are paid as carers. We have them living in our village, some who are working on the side and even running a business. I am a carer but I have never applied for assistance and when social services paid an unannounced visit some years ago, they went out of my front door faster than they came in; they've never been back. I think it's about time you drew your horns in and stopped charging round these boards making unfounded and erroneous judgements of people you neither know nor with whom you have any axe to grind. I speak as I find. And do you need the winter fuel allowance you are given? genuinely need it? And if not do you keep the money anyway and defend your right to it? If so, what makes you better than a welfare scrounger with a sense of entitlement? Then your findings are wrong. I pay tax and for the past 16 or so months I have paid two to three times the amount for heating oil that I used to pay. Where I live there is no gas supply laid on and it's either electric or oil heating. In August 2021 I paid £234 for 500 litres of oil. A month or so later, on hearing of an impending price rise, I got a quote for 500 litres @ £639; I didn't buy. Since then I have bought theree lots of 500litres, 1 x £550, 1 x £520 and 1 x £460. I have received two £100 government rebates and you ask whether people like me are sponging. Now do what you have told others to d and fuck off, you've no idea outside your little left wing indoctrination, go nback to Jarrow. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Feb 13, 2023 12:06:19 GMT
OK All standard lefty swerves and dodges about extra ham sandwiches, bus fares and 'evil' landlords etc noted . Your position is clear , you don't see any issue with disqualifying pensioners from state pension if they have an income of £30k (and still paying tax) and those who refuse to work for more than 16 hours a week (there's plenty of work - employers are crying out for more staff) so they can still get full benefits, trousering a tax free income in the mid £40000s. I am not talking about pensions but other taxpayer handouts to pensioners. And you yourself epitomise the double standard in supporting this whilst at the same time resenting all help for the working poor, some of whom may well end up wiping your arse for for a pittance in your dotage. The attitude of so many of the old gits around here positive reek of double standards, hypocrisy and a sense of entitlement. Yours is typical. The working poor? On tax free mid £40000s because the few hours a week they fancy working means they can get a ''top up'' of nearly £40000 to ''get by'' when there are many pensioners still paying tax ? Only one displaying double standards here is you |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 13, 2023 12:12:10 GMT
I'm a taxpayer, many pensioners are taxpayers, usually on well less that £30K pa. It's the same for working age people too you know, many of us not enjoying taxpayer funded handouts either. And unlike you pensioners, we also pay NI. And any pensioner with enough of an income to be paying income tax is unlikely to be destitute.You haven't a fucking clue, pensioners tax threshold is around £12,500pa. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Feb 13, 2023 12:12:12 GMT
I'm a taxpayer, many pensioners are taxpayers, usually on well less that £30K pa. It's the same for working age people too you know, many of us not enjoying taxpayer funded handouts either. And unlike you pensioners, we also pay NI. And any pensioner with enough of an income to be paying income tax is unlikely to be destitute. Pensioners have the same personal allowance as everyone before paying income tax- currently £12,570 (slightly over £1000 a month) If your logic considers a pensioner with an annual income of £13000 unlikely to be destitute why do you not apply the same logic to those on tens of thousands of tax free taxpayer funded handouts? |
|
