Re: More cuts from failing Osborne
 

The real problem here is accurately distinguishing between those who's disabled acts are truly Oscar winning and those who try to manfully to cope with their disabilities and thus appear less disabled than they actually are.

Even with the economy growing at around it's historical "normal" rate there are insufficient tax revenues to finance day-to-day expenditure. Stopping giving away £billions to the EU and nations that don't need it would be a good start in plugging the hole.

For those who say there must be no cuts where are the major sums to come from? Borrowing to finance day-to-day expenditure is how we got into the mess we are in. The only tax base large enough that could provide these are the middle income group. £20K to £50K. I.E. YOU!

Re: More cuts from failing Osborne
 

There are in sufficient tax revenues, as wages haven't grown as wonder boy George promised and he insists on cutting taxes for those that least need it. This is nothing to do with false benefit claims, more about being vindictive on those most vulnerable to pay for a tax give away for his chums. This is a cut too far and it isn't needed.

Re: More cuts from failing Osborne
 

I think workers are paying enough tax in, it's just that too much is being paid out!

Re: More cuts from failing Osborne
 

DLA and PIP are NOT there to provide additional income, that is the "job" of ESA.

Re: More cuts from failing Osborne
 

£31,786 or even £40,000 PA is not a vast amount of money and when housing/transport/family costs are taken into consideration then then giving 40% of earnings from a wage of £40,000 can leave those people worse off than quite a few disabled people because they don't get any state help at all

---------- Post added at 16:24 ---------- Previous post was at 16:21 ----------

When wages do grow socialists like you just want to take it in the from them and give it to those who don't contribute

Re: More cuts from failing Osborne
 

You don't pay the 40% rate on the £40'000 you pay it on anything over the 40% tax threshold. Anything you earn below the 40% threshold is taxed at the normal rate.

Very simple example,

You earn £20'000 the 40% tax rate is on earnings over £15'000 so you pay the lower rate on the first £15'000 then the final £5000 is taxed at 40%.

Re: More cuts from failing Osborne
 

I know how the tax system works, my point is that those middle income workers are the ones who suffer most ,paying more tax and receiving no state aid at all can leave them worse off than lower paid workers who pay no tax and receive tax credits .Just because part of someones earnings are taxed at 40% does not mean they are rich and can afford to pay more tax.In theory and practice they are the people contributing most to society so why should they be punished ?

Re: More cuts from failing Osborne
 

I agree with you, a system where someone can have their rent paid (£500a month) there council taxi paid (£150 a month) then receive £200-£300 a week in extra benefits plus a free £20'000 cars plus tax insurance and serving is unsustainable long term.

People need a reasonable level of help to achieve a reasonable level of lifestyle. Not to live in luxury with SkyTV, latest mobile phones, 100mb internet connections etc. When it takes the tax receipts of 4 working families to fund the lifestyle of 1 benefits claiming family the system needs changing.

Re: More cuts from failing Osborne
 

Wrong way round, and DLA/PIP is not "additional income" but the only income in most cases. ESA (Work-related activity group) is to help with additional costs finding and keeping employment. ESA (income related) is also means tested, so stops if you (plus your partner) have more than £16K at any age. It is also reduced on a sliding scale if you have in excess of £6k.

---------- Post added at 17:12 ---------- Previous post was at 17:09 ----------

Not free, the entire Mobility component of DLA/PIP is used to pay for it. And that's usually just a basic car. If you want something more expensive, or modified for your use you have to pay the difference

Re: More cuts from failing Osborne
 

An how many people ensure they don't earn a penny over £16k, our friend has jobs offering full time hours but applicants only want 24 hours so they don't loose benefits.

Benefits are a safety net, if you can work full time and fund your lifestyle you should. Benefits shouldn't be part of the decision making process. If at full time you still need help that's fine, but working as little as possible to keep benefits is an abuse.

---------- Post added at 17:16 ---------- Previous post was at 17:14 ----------

If I want a car I have to pay for it, if I want a nicer car I have to use a larger chunk of my wages to pay for it. Using money you're given for free to get a car still means the car is entirely free.

Re: More cuts from failing Osborne
 

oh dear, make yourself feel better time is it just to pretend only fraudsters are affected?

For a start I can put your claim to shame by confirming I dont know anyone abusing the system.

I think the truth is more like part of the reason people are not bothered is (a) they themselves are not personally affected (yes we live in a self first society these days) and (b) they have been led to believe by propaganda that there is a huge amount of people fiddling the system.

On the other hand I know personally probably half a dozen business owners who hide profits down the back of the sofa etc. to avoid paying taxes.

Re: More cuts from failing Osborne
 

You're not really being 'punished' though are you? You're paying what's reasonable given your above average ( yes £31k is way above) income, as I presume you're a civilsed
person who wants the vulnerable protected. Its the disabled being punished. This money is for things like basic toilet and dressing needs. George is raiding this so so called 'middle/daily mail' earners can have a few extra Euros holiday money.

Re: More cuts from failing Osborne
 

Mr K, I think he is one of those who want a communist tax system to fit a capitalism wage system. He will never be convinced otherwise.

Re: More cuts from failing Osborne
 

He earns his wages he is entitled to keep them, Work hard to earn more. Not work hard to give away more.

It seems some want a unfair benefits system that should take as much as it wants from anyone trying to provide for themselves. But no one should take anything from the benefits system. My wages are MY WAGES, ITS MY MONEY I EARNED. You seem to struggle to grasp this fact.

You seem to think if I earn more it should be taken from me, an you seem to think this is fair. You're deluded.

---------- Post added at 18:27 ---------- Previous post was at 18:21 ----------

George is letting "earners" keep what THEY EARNED, you do grasp this fact don't you? George is saying "go to work and graft for 40/50/60 hours a week and you can enjoy the money you gave up so much to earn.

All those hours away from your family can never be given back, but you can enjoy your children with a few extra euros to buy your loved ones things you worked so hard to provide.

Once again we see the whole people on benefits should be able to afford everything but workers shouldn't be able to enjoy the benefits of hard work.

Re: More cuts from failing Osborne
 

And that in a nutshell is the problem. :tu: