VAT & Fuel Duty

[donna miller]

Rich, I'm not getting into a slanging match with you or anyone else, but look at what you are writing.....

 

"So who else other than the taxpayers of the country do you think pays all the taxes that provides for their benefits and low or no rent subsidised housing "

 

So council house tenants pay no taxes then. You are tarring everyone with the same brush, and I doubt very much that you would be saying the same if your parents hadn't been lucky enough to move out of their council property.

 

Maybe your comments were not meant to be offensive, but to some they may have been, Or are you another that doesn't believe I have the right to say so, but am supposed to accept others criticism of me.

I honestly thought you were better than that, so Basil's comment about me always being right, is flawed already.

 

[Basil]

W3526602 - 2010-02-14 6:47 AM

 

Hi,

 

Define POOR. Define RICH, Just so we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

 

My wife was a Higher Executive Officer in the Civil Service, on the maximum of her pay scale. Her "take home" was very similar to the benefits (cash and kind) received by a family up the road. It was amazing just how much it cost my wife to go to work (travel, clothing, meals, etc), while the benefit recipient boosted his income by driving a taxi in the evening.

 

It is wrong that somebody who doesn't work should be given a greater disposable income than somebody who does work.

 

I suspect this disparity extends into retirement.

 

602

 

Hi Tracker, the above quote is quite pertinent I believe, but it is difficult to see a logical way of changing the systems that we have. Your comment may be right that someone who earns more should pay a higher rent but that would then be a disincentive to 'better' (can't think of a more PC way of expresing that, hell why should I) themselves. So what exactly could be done do you think, it must be something that the politicians wrestle with? What makes someone decide to take a specific route or have a 'higher' goal in mind?

 

Bas

[Guest Tracker]

Donna,

 

Of course you have the right to have your say but when that say criticises me I have the right to reply.

 

Of course social housing tenants pay tax and where there are multiple earners no doubt they can be construed as possibly contributing more than they benefit.

 

Those who pay no tax or very little tax other than vat and duty do not contribute enough to pay their own way and surely you can't argue with that?

 

My parents were not so much lucky - more by dint of their own efforts but I accept they were fortunate enough to have the ability and drive that those less fortunate do not have. That is an observation not a criticism!

 

I don't see anything offensive in what I have said and I am surprised that you take that stance.

 

Can I get you to accept that this is a theoretical discussion and not about slagging off those in social housing for whatever reason - which I have taken care not to do. There is nothing wrong with those who could afford to buy their own place remaining in social housing - it is after all a personal choice where they spend or save their money - but let us not be under any illusion as to who really pays for the lower income and benefit only tenants to remain in their homes - it is everyone else.

[donna miller]

Tracker - 2010-02-14 8:29 PM

 

Donna,

 

Of course you have the right to have your say but when that say criticises me I have the right to reply.

 

Can I get you to accept that this is a theoretical discussion and not about slagging off those in social housing for whatever reason

 

but let us not be under any illusion as to who really pays for the lower income and benefit only tenants to remain in their homes - it is everyone else.

 

 

Rich, 3 points

 

1. Fine, as long as you remember that has to work both ways.

 

2. It stopped being theoretical when You and Basil introduced personal experiences and situations into the discussion.

 

3. There, You are doing it again, "paying for lower Income tenants to remain in their homes"

Those lower income tenants also pay taxes to ensure retired homeowners get their state pension, lower council tax when their partner dies, cold weather payment, free bus passes, prescriptions, nursing homes, All of which are paid for by the taxpayer, regardless of whether they live on a council estate or in a nice exclusive cul-de-sac in their own home.

Don't be so righteous as to assume that you or your 'higher income' buddies are somehow keeping those who earn less than you.

 

You'll notice I don't mention those on benefits, that is a completely different ball game, but again, don't be too quick to assume that everyone on benefits is a beer swilling, fag smoking scrounger !!

[Guest Tracker]

There is nothing to be gained by continuing this Donna so lets just agree to differ and remain friends shall we?

[donna miller]

That suits me just fine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apology accepted. :D

[Guest Tracker]

donna miller - 2010-02-15 11:29 AM

Apology accepted. :D

 

Really - that's strange - because like you I make no apology for my views!

[Mel B]

8-)

[W3526602]

Hi,

 

Yes, the better off should subsidise those less able/willing. But currently we have a situation where those less well off are subsidising the scroungers to a higher income, albeit indirectly. IE - somebody earning £10,000pa will be paying taxes, and have to watch his neighbour recieve £15,000 in benefits (presumably tax-free?).

 

And when they both retire, they will receive similar state pensions.

 

602

[BGD]

W3526602 - 2010-02-16 6:55 AM

 

Hi,

 

Yes, the better off should subsidise those less able/willing. But currently we have a situation where those less well off are subsidising the scroungers to a higher income, albeit indirectly. IE - somebody earning £10,000pa will be paying taxes, and have to watch his neighbour recieve £15,000 in benefits (presumably tax-free?).

 

And when they both retire, they will receive similar state pensions.

 

602

 

 

Two issues for me, one of opinion and one of fact:

 

1. In my opinion the well off should indeed subsidise to a degree the less able.

But I TOTALLY disagree that they should also have to subsidise the less willing.

 

2. Soz, but your pensions example simply isn't true. The two people you cite would in fact receive substantially different State pensions because of the Earnings-Related element in the State pension system.

 

 

[W3526602]

The two people you cite would in fact receive substantially different State pensions because of the Earnings-Related element in the State pension system.

 

Hi BGD,

 

I understood that the earnings related part of the pension was phased out many years ago. OK, I do get a small amount, based on about three years contributions. Or are we talking about different things?

 

 

602