Why are the all the Daily-Mail-middle-class-closet-communists so outraged by....

[DimPrawn]

Not in higher rate bracket and too old for kids (unless I get lucky) but as an old git I will almost certainly lose my winter fuel allowance. Nevetheless, I think the removal of all these allowances made regardless of wealth, , including that one, is a marvellous bit of sanity from government.

Righties may think there is a case for lower taxes for the productive better off to improve incentives and I generally agree but that should be done via tax allowances. There is no case for a ridiculously complex system where an overbearing state takes money from us all and then doles some of it back out, less a huge administrative overhead, via a myriad of rules and benefits.

The simpler the system and the more f* useless parasite public "servants" we can get rid of, the better for everyone, rich and poor.

WHS

[DimPrawn]

I think it is not about whether we should pay for those things at all but how much we should pay and to whom.

There is sound sense in a significant distribution of wealth to improve society, to pay for other people's children who will in turn work to pay for our care when we get old, to provide insurance and peace of mind for those misfortunes that can befall any of us at times, like being ill or out of work or homeless.

The problem is not with the principle but rather the lack of control that sees money paid to those who are not doing what they reasonably should to help themselves, like the workshy who are raising children in their own image who will probably pay for nobody's pension. This destroys incentive to try and encourages tax avoidance by the able.

WHS++

[Pogle]

How on earth can you expect to get back exactly what you put in. We might as well just shut down democracy and just run a purely capitalist based society, every man for himself.

Thats the problem with this country, its all about what the government does for you.

This might strike you as a novelty, but I don't mind that as a higher earning member of society that I pay more taxes so that those earning less can get free healthcare. And as for pleading poverty, sorry but if you can't survive on 50k a year, even in London, then you need to start analysing your outgoings .....

Oh God I actually agree with you.

I'm off to lie down in a nice dark haystack.

[fullyautomatix]

Oh God I actually agree with you.

I'm off to lie down in a nice dark haystack.

You know, KNOB25 does not actually mean what he writes. Quite the opposite in fact. He is a classic troll who takes an opposite view to the most vocal poster so that there is some form of aggressive argument. Same applies to GricerBoy.

[DimPrawn]

You know, KNOB25 does not actually mean what he writes. Quite the opposite in fact. He is a classic troll who takes an opposite view to the most vocal poster so that there is some form of aggressive argument. Same applies to GricerBoy.

No he doesn't.

[ItsQuickerAntiClockwise]

You know, KNOB25 does not actually mean what he writes. Quite the opposite in fact. He is a classic troll who takes an opposite view to the most vocal poster so that there is some form of aggressive argument. Same applies to GricerBoy.

While that is true in a lot of cases, in this case, I actually do mean what I write. It makes me laugh when those who are well off expect to get everything back that they put in. Like I said, if that was the case, lets do away with taxes all together and just have a 'every man for himself' society.

[Alf W]

What a fantastic implosion by the Tories. Osborne hasn't so much dropped the ball on this one as much as picked it up, run towards his own goal and firmly punted it in by really not thinking this through

Watching Cameron trying to tough it out on the interview with Adam Bolton this morning and pretend that's what they had intended to announce was absolutely priceless. He even crawled as low as to say that it would be £1bn he wouldn't have to take off education to give it some sort of credence.

I bet Osborne is getting his arse cheeks properly roasted in front of the fire behind closed doors over this one.

[shaunbhoy]

It makes me laugh when those who are well off expect to get everything back that they put in.

Well if anyone had actually said that, you might have a case. But as they have not, you don't.

HTH

[Alf W]

On Monday Chancellor George Osborne said that from 2013 child benefit would be removed from families with at least one parent earning more than about £44,000 a year.

But families with two earners paid just under the threshold each, would still be eligible. The government says it is too complex and expensive to work out overall household incomes to administer the benefit.

**** me! We are being governed by a bunch of people who think adding up two salaries is "too complex and expensive"

[Saddo]

However - I don't have sprogs, so those of you that do - you are fookin' sponging off me. Why should I pay for schools? Never been ill - why should I pay for hospitals? Never been old - why should I pay for care? Never been homeless - why should I pay for social housing?
I doubt any of this will strike a chord - you are all too short sighted and - frankly - fookin' thick..

How's about when the day comes and you want the state pension, or the NHS to supply an ambulance to get you to a hospital? Or your house is set alight and the fire brigade helpfully come round and squirt some water on it. Those things are going to be paid from taxes on these sprogs which you don't want to pay for.

I appreciate that as a contractor you may well have your own personal pension plan sorted, but you might want to accept the government handout to top it up (if you can live to 105 which will be the minimum age to draw state pension by the time you get there).

With regard to never having been homeless or ill, I think it would be risky to assume that because something hasn't happened it never will.