Lottery winners "on the sick"
Discussion
davepoth said:
When I worked in the USA, I had to file a tax return. There's an option on there that says something along the lines of "would you like to give any tax rebate that might be due to you back to the government to help with the National Debt?". Can you imagine that happening in the UK?
"I'm alright Jack".
French did that sort of thing too but it was a group of the wealthiest people in the country setup a one off payment exercise."I'm alright Jack".
davepoth said:
Six Fiend said:
OP, he's not on the sick.
HTH.
I'd stop claiming if I had that sort, or even a tenth of that money. In fact, probably a lot less...
Well no, not on IB which is the one we generally call "on the sick" but he is receiving £6,000 a year and motability allowance on top of that when he has absolutely no need for it.HTH.
I'd stop claiming if I had that sort, or even a tenth of that money. In fact, probably a lot less...
Physically he may qualify. Whether he should keep claiming is more a moral issue though
davepoth said:
When I worked in the USA, I had to file a tax return. There's an option on there that says something along the lines of "would you like to give any tax rebate that might be due to you back to the government to help with the National Debt?". Can you imagine that happening in the UK?
"I'm alright Jack".
Interesting. I suspect a lot of people think they pay too much tax and the govt has taken the p, exhausting any warm feelings of generousity we have to the State - them and us."I'm alright Jack".
g2g
Sticks. said:
davepoth said:
When I worked in the USA, I had to file a tax return. There's an option on there that says something along the lines of "would you like to give any tax rebate that might be due to you back to the government to help with the National Debt?". Can you imagine that happening in the UK?
"I'm alright Jack".
Interesting. I suspect a lot of people think they pay too much tax and the govt has taken the p, exhausting any warm feelings of generousity we have to the State - them and us."I'm alright Jack".
g2g
davepoth said:
When I worked in the USA, I had to file a tax return. There's an option on there that says something along the lines of "would you like to give any tax rebate that might be due to you back to the government to help with the National Debt?". Can you imagine that happening in the UK?
"I'm alright Jack".
You can direct HMRC to pay tax refunds to a selected charity if you want to. That option is on the tax return."I'm alright Jack".
Many people would prefer to do that rather than give the money to the state.
Funk said:
What is the average percentage of taxation across the US? I feel that we are taxed a little too much here in the UK already when you take into account all the 'overt' and 'stealth' taxes.
In VERY round numbers a higher paid person would pay federal tax etc at about 28% of earned income, which compares with 40% in UK. The highest rate is 35% which compares with UKs 50%. BUT they pay "local income tax" as well, over and above these figures, and it varies from state to state. The average is about 3%.
VAT of 20% in UK compares with sales tax of about 7% in USA. This is a state tax and not a federal tax.
So in summary, all taxes are significantly lower in USA. Don't go expecting a National Health Service or a Pension though!
davepoth said:
as I dont know your circumstances its hard to say if you are justified being so 'upset'. But do you think millionaire business men with million pound pension pots dont claim their state pension? What about people that send their kids to private schools, do you think they dont claim child allowance? And I'm pretty sure a fair proportion of people on PH are 'creative' with their taxation position, what is your position on them?Perhaps none of these apply to you. well done.
My view is that the state will screw you for every penny they can. Therefore I have absolutely no problem with people taking back what they can when they are allowed to. I don't ever recall the revenue saying "You owe us "£x, but don't worry about it we've got enough" (unless you are a billion pound multinational perhaps).
10 Pence Short said:
The disability benefit should be means tested, as should all the others.
At what point do you draw the line of where someone's disability is (for want of a better phrase) 'their own problem'? How often do you review that line, which measure of inflation should it be indexed against? What about people who are just under the line who then have to turn down a job/payrise because it'll make them worse off? I suspect that the administration of all of this could cost as much of the benefit itself.My guess would be that since winning the £10m, he's bought a smart house or 2(stamp duty), a few nice cars (vat, roadtax, insurance premium tax), had some nice holidays (vat, airport tax) etc etc.
I bet he's paid thousands more in tax since winning the lotto than he has claimed in benefits.
I bet he's paid thousands more in tax since winning the lotto than he has claimed in benefits.
Other benefits are means tested in a basic way, such as Jobseekers. It needn't be a difficult job to means test.
If someone has £100k in the bank, for example, it is hard to argue they are in need of state support to live. Benefits should just be for people who need them, not people who have paid some tax and think they are owed.
If someone has £100k in the bank, for example, it is hard to argue they are in need of state support to live. Benefits should just be for people who need them, not people who have paid some tax and think they are owed.
davepoth said:
I feel that people have a moral responsibility to ask themselves whether they really need to claim. It's a long time since those Easter Sundays when I used to eat so much chocolate that I would be sick.
Would you apply that to Child Benefit too? Doesn't make much of a headline, millionaire still gets child benefit. Bit of a media trend of late, loving exposing 'fake/undeserving disabled', it sells papers.Was talking to someone yesterday who got turned down for DLA and really couldn't believe she gets no help at all with what she had. Not headline news though.
10 Pence Short said:
Other benefits are means tested in a basic way, such as Jobseekers. It needn't be a difficult job to means test.
If someone has £100k in the bank, for example, it is hard to argue they are in need of state support to live. Benefits should just be for people who need them, not people who have paid some tax and think they are owed.
Would you differentiate between a 25 year old who won £100k on the lottery and a 65 year old who has saved up all their life so that they have a retirement fund? Should the 65 year old be excluded from all benefits if they became disabled just because they worked hard to save? What kind of message does that put out?If someone has £100k in the bank, for example, it is hard to argue they are in need of state support to live. Benefits should just be for people who need them, not people who have paid some tax and think they are owed.
It seems a bit heartless not to differentiate but if you do the system gets even more complex.
Edited by theaxe on Saturday 4th February 16:38
davepoth said:
I feel that people have a moral responsibility to ask themselves whether they really need to claim. It's a long time since those Easter Sundays when I used to eat so much chocolate that I would be sick.
A persons relationship with the state is a legal one, not a moral one. You have no choice about whether to have a relationship with the state, you are forced to. As such, if the state makes something available to you, then why shouldn't you take it? As I mentioned before, the state has absolutely no compunction about taking off you when it thinks it is owed so why should anyone else feel different? theaxe said:
Would you differentiate between a 25 year old who won £100k on the lottery and a 65 year old who has saved up all their life so that they have a retirement fund? Should the 65 year old be excluded from all benefits if they became disabled just because they worked hard to save? What kind of message does that put out?
It puts the message out that the State is a lender of very last resort, and should only pay out money to people who would not be able to survive a reasonable quality of life without help.Edited by theaxe on Saturday 4th February 16:36
The State should not be expected to distinguish between the merits of how someone has earned their money- it should just have regard to how capable or otherwise they are of looking after themselves.
Other than the State pension, paying your taxes shouldn't be considered a savings plan. It's not a case of deserving an amount back simply because you put it in.
tank slapper said:
davepoth said:
I feel that people have a moral responsibility to ask themselves whether they really need to claim. It's a long time since those Easter Sundays when I used to eat so much chocolate that I would be sick.
A persons relationship with the state is a legal one, not a moral one. You have no choice about whether to have a relationship with the state, you are forced to. As such, if the state makes something available to you, then why shouldn't you take it? As I mentioned before, the state has absolutely no compunction about taking off you when it thinks it is owed so why should anyone else feel different? 10 Pence Short said:
It puts the message out that the State is a lender of very last resort, and should only pay out money to people who would not be able to survive a reasonable quality of life without help.
The State should not be expected to distinguish between the merits of how someone has earned their money- it should just have regard to how capable or otherwise they are of looking after themselves.
Other than the State pension, paying your taxes shouldn't be considered a savings plan. It's not a case of deserving an amount back simply because you put it in.
But doesn't that policy encourage people to become helpless? You could spend your youth blowing all of your money on the proverbial coke 'n' hookers and arrive in old age without a bean and the state would help you. Should you manage your money carefully you could come to retirement with enough to be comfortable, only to find that the state gives you nothing and you have to spend it all to get to the same level as the coke fiend.The State should not be expected to distinguish between the merits of how someone has earned their money- it should just have regard to how capable or otherwise they are of looking after themselves.
Other than the State pension, paying your taxes shouldn't be considered a savings plan. It's not a case of deserving an amount back simply because you put it in.
My point about universal benefits is that you say (for example) "everyone will get a benefit of X at retirement". The wealthy will cover that and more in taxes anyway, the reckless (or unfortunate) will end up with what they would have had anyway and no-one has to try and set complex rules about eligibility.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff