After Osbourne's attack on IT contractors

[vetran]

Well it ain't me & you, my Russian friend.

When you are ready to pay £50,000 for an audience with the PM they'll let you know.

FTFY

[DodgyAgent]

Unequivocally this.

Also you get the feel good factor of paying for more nurses.

Trust pays an agency nurse £2,200 a day - Telegraph

[AtW]

Although I originally went contracting for the money, I found out pretty quickly that it suits me in so many other ways that may be more important than money. I don't reckon I'll ever go permie again.

By the time Osborne is done with your kind, you'll go permie and you'll like it!!!

[AtW]

What irks me is universal pensioner benefits and triple locks. Why should a retired banker in Surrey, living in a mansion, get a free bus pass and heating allowance.
I am happy to pay a bit more tax to make my contribution; but wealthy pensioners must also pay, much much more.

That retired banker paid more tax than most other pensioners, so he damn right entitled to at least the same pensioner benefits.

[AtW]

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.

If they pay tax on at least national average then they should be entitled to same benefits.

It is ridiculous that some people think it's ok for others to pay more tax than them, yet not to be entitled to benefits that should be equal.

[tractor]

....

If they pay tax on at least national average then they should be entitled to same benefits.

It is ridiculous that some people think it's ok for others to pay more tax than them, yet not to be entitled to benefits that should be equal.

It is ridiculous that those who don't need benefits are entitled to them. Benefits are a safety net, not an insurance with a maturity date.

[BrilloPad]

It is ridiculous that those who don't need benefits are entitled to them. Benefits are a safety net, not an insurance with a maturity date.

Bollox. I claim anything and everything I can for my disabled kids.

Though I might not bother if it was not for the governments disgraceful behaviour on retrospective legislation. Or the family courts.

[AtW]

It is ridiculous that those who don't need benefits are entitled to them. Benefits are a safety net, not an insurance with a maturity date.

Ok, so let's say my car gets stolen, I paid insurance for it, but the reality is that I can easily take the loss in full and just buy new car, so, should that be sufficient for the insurance company to deny my claim? I think not.

Tax rates are already unfair in that being different - and it's an insult to those who pay most tax to be denied same benefits they fooking paid for.

[DimPrawn]

Ok, so let's say my car gets stolen, I paid insurance for it, but the reality is that I can easily take the loss in full and just buy new car, so, should that be sufficient for the insurance company to deny my claim? I think not.

Tax rates are already unfair in that being different - and it's an insult to those who pay most tax to be denied same benefits they fooking paid for.

Have to say (unusually) I agree with AtW on this one. Govt likes to tax people heavily (only "fair") and then deny them everything, as it's means tested, meaning only fooking layabout dole dossers get anything back from the state.

[AtW]

I would have agreed with the means testing if it was something easy like this - if you got £1 mln+ in liquid assets (cash, shares) then fook off until you have below £1 mln. But we all know that number of such people is non existent and they ain't going to be claiming benefits, so the real deal behind "means testing" is to cut off a lot of normal people who might have saved £10k in bank account, which is fooking nothing given cost of living, how come they ain't entitled to benefits they PAID FOR???