Reply to: so which one for the axe?

[The Spartan]

Well yes, but you can say the same about all sorts of things. Why should anyone pay more tax just because they worked harder at school and got a better job? How is that fair?

If benefits are to pay for people that can't support themselves, why are we giving them to someone who's sitting on a half a million pound house? That money will just end up in the pockets of their children when they die, even if their children are lazy scroungers who've never worked hard or done anything right in their lives. Is that fair?

Because it belongs to them, maybe when they bought it all those years ago they had no idea it'd be worth that much in years to come. It may end up in the pockets of their children but not before inheritance tax is no doubt paid on it, other than that have you ever considered that they may have a sentimental attachment to their home?

I'm not saying anyone should pay more tax for working harder, it's just the way the current system works not that I agree with it.

[VectraMan]

So in effect penalising anyone who decided to buy their house, why should they have to sell up?

It was in fact NI I was more or less on about, but still the point stands why should anyone get less because they've prepared for their future while others don't.

Well yes, but you can say the same about all sorts of things. Why should anyone pay more tax just because they worked harder at school and got a better job? How is that fair?

If benefits are to pay for people that can't support themselves, why are we giving them to someone who's sitting on a half a million pound house? That money will just end up in the pockets of their children when they die, even if their children are lazy scroungers who've never worked hard or done anything right in their lives. Is that fair?

[vetran]

Because the country needs the housing stock. Wrinklies already have it all. Why can't they share a little with the young?

maybe the wrinklies built enough for themselves, the youngsters should do the same.

when I was a kid houses were cheap to buy because there were lots spare or not wanted much.

[darmstadt]

Why does it have to be benefits that are cut? I would like to see MPs salaries halved. Health and safety removed. And QE spent on tax cuts. This would enable the economy to grow and get rid of the deficit that way.

And cut bodyguards for Tony Blair too.

Do you think that would improve the standard of government in this country?

As the government are so keen on privitisation ,outsourcing, PFI and so on as 'apparently' they bring savings, then why not themselves? Surely they should be showing an example

[The Spartan]

Because the country needs the housing stock. Wrinklies already have it all. Why can't they share a little with the young?

It does need more housing stock but isn't that more to do more with certain areas?

Also having areas of highly concentrated economic activity doesn't make it any better, shouldn't it be more spread out throughout the country. There seem to be a lot of properties in Wales to buy when I looked today.

[BrilloPad]

So in effect penalising anyone who decided to buy their house, why should they have to sell up?

Because the country needs the housing stock. Wrinklies already have it all. Why can't they share a little with the young?

[The Spartan]

It's tax. Should we all be able to opt out of tax because we never get something back? That's not really the point of tax. I know ostensibly NI is meant to pay for your pension, but nobody really believes that.

If you means tested pensions including property value, then you'd probably save a fair wedge. On top of that you'd encourage the old dears to sell up, move somewhere smaller/sunnier, thus solving the housing crisis. And solving the housing crisis would effect a big saving on housing benefit.

So in effect penalising anyone who decided to buy their house, why should they have to sell up?

It was in fact NI I was more or less on about, but still the point stands why should anyone get less because they've prepared for their future while others don't.

[SimonMac]

the wealthy pensioners vote and mainly for the tories.


It does seem that some benefits should be means tested if it doesn't cost too much though.

Thats one of the biggest problems, its a nightmare trying to means test everyone, and you can't simply tax the richest because everyone has ambition that one day they too could be rich if they work hard

[VectraMan]

Depends on how you want to approach it, thing is if you're putting into the system then you should be entitled to something back eventually or be able to opt out of putting in, in the first place.

It's tax. Should we all be able to opt out of tax because we never get something back? That's not really the point of tax. I know ostensibly NI is meant to pay for your pension, but nobody really believes that.

If you means tested pensions including property value, then you'd probably save a fair wedge. On top of that you'd encourage the old dears to sell up, move somewhere smaller/sunnier, thus solving the housing crisis. And solving the housing crisis would effect a big saving on housing benefit.

[SimonMac]

Why does it have to be benefits that are cut? I would like to see MPs salaries halved. Health and safety removed. And QE spent on tax cuts. This would enable the economy to grow and get rid of the deficit that way.

And cut bodyguards for Tony Blair too.

Salaries for MP's were brought in in 1911 (£400 a year IIRC) as they wanted more "commoners" in the house of commons, so those without a private income were usually unable to stand for parliment before salaries were introduced

[The Spartan]

I don't see why the pensioners should be spared. I suspect if you started means testing the state pension to some reasonable level, it would be job done in finding the savings the govt wants.

Depends on how you want to approach it, thing is if you're putting into the system then you should be entitled to something back eventually or be able to opt out of putting in, in the first place.

So if you're a spender through life you get a pension but if you're cautious and plan your retirement you end up getting less, not really a great idea to me.

[vetran]

I don't see why the pensioners should be spared. I suspect if you started means testing the state pension to some reasonable level, it would be job done in finding the savings the govt wants.

the wealthy pensioners vote and mainly for the tories.


It does seem that some benefits should be means tested if it doesn't cost too much though.

[oscarose]

I don't see why the pensioners should be spared. I suspect if you started means testing the state pension to some reasonable level, it would be job done in finding the savings the govt wants.

because they are good at voting

[alphadog]

I don't see why the pensioners should be spared. I suspect if you started means testing the state pension to some reasonable level, it would be job done in finding the savings the govt wants.

[vetran]

Well Gove is making friends in the legal profession. Maybe some of the cuts will come there.