Cable Forum - View Single Post

Chrysalis · 14-03-2016, 14:58

yep these figures that show how much tax is paid by the richest, only really highlights how imbalanced income levels are.

Personally I dont have an issue with people getting as much salary as they can get from their job, my issue is really when the rich start complaining they not well off and need tax cuts, thats what I dont like. Then of course these tax cuts have to be funded, the target is usually the silent part of the population.

I used to claim DLA, but I havent bothered with PIP, even tho the amount of distance I can walk without a problem is very crippling, I am pretty sure the current redefined criteria I would be found not immobile enough to be considered in need of mobility payments (yes I spend a ton of cash on taxis). e.g. if someone can walk say 30 metres, they are apparently not severely affected, yet someone who is deemed able to walk lets say 20 meters is. In reality the difference between 20 and 30m is a few steps and both people are as disabled as each other, but there is this line that treats them very differently, as time has moved forward the line moves closer and closer to 0m. Its all really cost cutting and nothing more, instead of having a target for the affect on the individual it is a financial target, and the line is adjusted as required to hit that target.

14-03-2016, 14:58	#190
Chrysalis cf.mega poster Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 12,048	Re: More cuts from failing Osborne yep these figures that show how much tax is paid by the richest, only really highlights how imbalanced income levels are. Personally I dont have an issue with people getting as much salary as they can get from their job, my issue is really when the rich start complaining they not well off and need tax cuts, thats what I dont like. Then of course these tax cuts have to be funded, the target is usually the silent part of the population. I used to claim DLA, but I havent bothered with PIP, even tho the amount of distance I can walk without a problem is very crippling, I am pretty sure the current redefined criteria I would be found not immobile enough to be considered in need of mobility payments (yes I spend a ton of cash on taxis). e.g. if someone can walk say 30 metres, they are apparently not severely affected, yet someone who is deemed able to walk lets say 20 meters is. In reality the difference between 20 and 30m is a few steps and both people are as disabled as each other, but there is this line that treats them very differently, as time has moved forward the line moves closer and closer to 0m. Its all really cost cutting and nothing more, instead of having a target for the affect on the individual it is a financial target, and the line is adjusted as required to hit that target.