Thanks to everybody who took part in last week's Fun Online Poll, results as follows:
Who ought to pay for the long-term care of 'asset-rich' pensioners?
They themselves and their likely heirs - 74%
The taxpayer generally - 20%
Other, please specify - 5%
Crikey it seems like a long time ago since that was the hot topic. Anyway, it's nice to see that I'm with the majority on this one.
----------------------------------------------
This week, let's do a Trial By Internet. To save time, let's put them all in the dock in one go.
Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.
Put On Your Big Boy Pants, Maybe?
1 hour ago
6 comments:
Oh well, Baby Boomers - born into poverty and now MW and others will try to ensure that Baby Boomers die in poverty, I thank you.
Anon, somebody's got to pay for everything, would you like the taxpayer to pay to have your roof fixed and your petrol as well? Does 'self-reliance and aspiration' only go as far as expropriating as much wealth as possible without ever having to spend any? Are you going to try and take it with you? Why do you think that 'homeowners' are deserving of special subsidies courtesy of the taxpayer? And so on.
Don't you worry about it, I worked myself up without the help of people like you and I'm sure I'll do it again.
I pay to get my roof fixed, I pay full council tax, income tax, VAT, tax on insurance, tax on diesel, Eax on this, that and the other, Now you want the little bit I've got left - you greedy bastards.
Anon, I'm against income tax and VAT and insurance premium tax, that's not the issue.
The simple issue is, if old people are to be looked after, then somebody has to pay for it - clearly you aren't keen to pay it yourself, but no doubt you'd be happy to impose income tax, VAT etc. on other people so that the government has the money to pay it for you.
You're not exactly being consistent, are you?
Maybe, just maybe, the reasoning behind taxation, of all sorts, is to bind people to the governments apron strings.
I have tried to give the impression that, after paying all these taxes, I still don't rely upon anyone but myself to get by.
If taxes, of all sorts, were abolished tomorrow I would even be more self reliant because it would be futile to turn to the state for help they would not have the resources so to do.
I have been as consistent as I can be whilst trying to follow your twisting path of logic.
Let me sum up:
My "home" was paid for by me the price I paid and what it's worth (to some one) now is irrelevant (to me), I will be leaving that "home" in a pine box (or something cheaper). I couldn't care less if "house" prices fell through the floor, when I'm gone it will be in the knowledge that I had done everything I possibly could to ensure food and shelter for mine with my own resources. I, personally, will have no further use for the "home", if it were my decision you could have the "house" (no longer a "home") for a fiver - my children might not see it that way.
Anon: "I couldn't care less if "house" prices fell through the floor... I, personally, will have no further use for the "home", if it were my decision you could have the "house" (no longer a "home") for a fiver"
Excellent. Then we are agreed - let's replace all taxes with taxes on land values - when you retire you wouldn't have to pay the LVT year by year, you can just defer it until death, so your kids might indeed only inherit £5, but they've saved all the income tax they'd have been paying along the way.
And, having settled that matter, I have absolutely no objection to the government spending some of the LVT receipts on long term old age care.
Post a Comment