After Osbourne's attack on IT contractors

[PurpleGorilla]

Are you sure you're not saying that boomers are selfish? It reads pretty like it!

Anyway I also dispute the generalisation that boomers are wealthy. By all means target the wealthy to make them pay their share. Please do not target an entire group based on some other criterion such as birth date, on the specious grounds that "they are all wealthy".

It sounds to me as though you are not talking about making the wealthy pay their share, whether they are born in the "baby boom" years or not; you are talking about demonising an entire huge group of people regardless of their circumstances, based on something outside their control.

As I say, if you want to tax the wealthy, then tax the wealthy. Do not simply assert that all boomers are wealthy, then tax all the boomers.

If I was to pick a word it would be egocentric.

True not all bankers, politicians, or boomers are wealthy; but generally they are. Check out wealth distribution by age;

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/region...age-group.html

Now, given the state of the economy, if I wanted to look for those who should contribute more tax, it is the wealthy, and I include myself.

QED

[suityou01]

You are a serial liar who was happy to post illegal, actionable vitriol and claimed to leave for good, yet here you are again, just how much credibility does that grant you?

As to the daily rate being 2x that of permies, that's comparing apples with raspberries, it completely ignores the costs associated with employing people.

No I'm not. No I didn't. Bite me.

[DodgyAgent]

Nope, I take most of my income as dividends so the changes will hit me. I would prefer it for personal reasons if we remained in a privileged position of paying less tax per £ income, but I can't justify why I deserve that privilege or why removing it is 'unfair'.

Hmm, many of us earn more than an MP salary, and MPs do typically actually work very long hours. I've no idea what agents earn but I doubt most of them are on £50k+, the company makes the profit surely.

Sorry, but no. I take advantage of an entirely legal and uncontroversial feature of working through my own company. This benefit seems likely to be removed and while I'd prefer it wasn't, there's no argument why I was entitled to it in the first place.

Who can doubt the sanctity of your position?

I would say to any critic of contractors pay one thing. The money I do not pay to the taxman is better spent by me than the state so "***** off"

[expat]

If I was to pick a word it would be egocentric.

True not all bankers, politicians, or boomers are wealthy; but generally they are. Check out wealth distribution by age;

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/region...age-group.html

Now, given the state of the economy, if I wanted to look for those who should contribute more tax, it is the wealthy, and I include myself.

QED

If I were to pick a word, it would be fortunate. There is something of spite in your characterisation of baby boomers, which is why I suspect that you want to punish them as a group, not just tax them as individuals.

I am aware of the statistics, and I agree with you that those who should contribute more tax would be the wealthy. Given the statistics, I would expect to find that statistically speaking, greater tax on the wealthy would result in greater tax on the baby boomers, in general. What I am opposed to is what I see as a political attempt to demonise as a group all the people born in the "baby boom" years, in order to target them as a whole.

In short, if you want to tax the wealthy, go ahead and tax the wealthy. But don't do it by identifying people's birth year and then acting as if they must be wealthy so they will be punished. Tax wealth, not birthday candles. Tax individuals, not groups.

[TykeMerc]

No I'm not. No I didn't. Bite me.

I suppose I could go through and dig out your many leaving for good posts, but in truth I'd rather not. There's more than a few who saw your homophobic hate post that led to your last exit post.

As I said serial liar.

[BrilloPad]

Now here's a Cunning Ploy if I've ever seen one:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/david-came...4.html#ToC7JnM

Slap head must be jumping for joy over that.

David Cameron Wants Us To Fund Our Own Sick Pay From Our Savings
Isn’t this what National Insurance is for?
----------------

NI is to fund the baby boomers to buy Lamborghinis.

The rest of us can work until we drop.

[NickFitz]

If the country is so wonderful now the boomers have had their fill; why is it so economically in the tulip?

That's due to the bankers ******* everything up and taking everybody else's money to pay for it. Did you not hear about that? It was in the news.

[jmo21]

Regardless of how much tax anyone pays, ALL benefits should be means tested. The tests should satisfy the 'need' element and be proportionate.

It is ridiculous that such people are entitled to a winter fuel allowance and such.

With stuff like bus passes, is it not the case that it would cost too much to manage the means testing, and it's cheaper just to give all eligible people the bus pass?

[BrilloPad]

That's due to the bankers ******* everything up and taking everybody else's money to pay for it. Did you not hear about that? It was in the news.

Lets be fair. They printed loads more money then kept it to themselves. Except for paying their cleaners.

Not quite the same as taking other people's money.

Actually, indirectly their policies led to commodity shortages and so massive food inflation so maybe you are right...

[PurpleGorilla]

Now here's a Cunning Ploy if I've ever seen one:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/david-came...4.html#ToC7JnM

Slap head must be jumping for joy over that.

Great stuff, once you have paid your education costs, saved the massive deposit for a house, and paid the tab for your parents credit card binge, you can pay your own sick pay, from your magic bean savings.