Lottery winners "on the sick"
Discussion
Deva Link said:
tinman0 said:
The only upside of this story is that their neighbours have probably started making their lives a living hell.
Pretty unlikely - they'll be well known in the area and they've chosen to stay there so far.People can appreciate the wealth they won on the lottery, that is one thing, but topping up with benefits when you are so wealthy is greed. Pure and simple.
And if anyone has any doubt who these people are - the DM published their names and mugshots for everyone to see. They'll be moving within 6 months.
Personally - I were them, I wouldn't leave my Mobility car on the road for the next few months.
Sticks. said:
Do you hope for the same for wealthy old people getting the winter fuel allowance? Or maybe your company boss getting child benefit?
Yup.The left fought for universal benefits for years knowing full well that in the future it was a divide and conquer scenario in the middle class (a middle class that largely doesn't need benefits).
You are merely playing into a trap set 40 years ago.
All that is happening, which so many people are unable to see, is that HMRC are collecting an increasing proportion of the country's income, and then paying it back out. Even Gordon Brown was trying to develop a system where payrolls would be paid to HMRC, and then HMRC would pay you the balance!
I remember a story in the papers years ago about Princess Diana collecting child benefit.
I have no issue with these lotto winners continuing to claim a benefit which they qualify for that isn't means tested. They'll be earning about £400K a year in interest on £10m, on which they'll be paying 40% tax, £160K. So the state is continuing to get far more out of them than they are getting from the state.
I have no issue with these lotto winners continuing to claim a benefit which they qualify for that isn't means tested. They'll be earning about £400K a year in interest on £10m, on which they'll be paying 40% tax, £160K. So the state is continuing to get far more out of them than they are getting from the state.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I remember a story in the papers years ago about Princess Diana collecting child benefit.
I have no issue with these lotto winners continuing to claim a benefit which they qualify for that isn't means tested. They'll be earning about £400K a year in interest on £10m, on which they'll be paying 40% tax, £160K. So the state is continuing to get far more out of them than they are getting from the state.
Because that's definitely a great state of affairs. Why is the government taking 40% of their money and then giving them about 2% back? would it not be better to just tax them at 38%?I have no issue with these lotto winners continuing to claim a benefit which they qualify for that isn't means tested. They'll be earning about £400K a year in interest on £10m, on which they'll be paying 40% tax, £160K. So the state is continuing to get far more out of them than they are getting from the state.
The test shouldn't have to be, are they legally entitled to receive tax payer funded benefit despite having 10 million pounds.
It should be able to be, do the NEED it.
It is the principle of having a benefit system that is not entirely means tested, that is wrong.
Rather than paying 40 percent tax and the government redistribute this willy nilly to other 40 percent tax payers, I'd rather we all got to keep another 2 percent and the resultant 38 percent tax earners get to look after themselves, instead. Smaller government concentrating on spending the tax it does need, wisely.
It should be able to be, do the NEED it.
It is the principle of having a benefit system that is not entirely means tested, that is wrong.
Rather than paying 40 percent tax and the government redistribute this willy nilly to other 40 percent tax payers, I'd rather we all got to keep another 2 percent and the resultant 38 percent tax earners get to look after themselves, instead. Smaller government concentrating on spending the tax it does need, wisely.
10 Pence Short said:
It is the principle of having a benefit system that is not entirely means tested, that is wrong.
I'd still, on balance, pay a few quid here and there to those who do not need it, than allow any government enough joined up information to decide if I need something or not.
Gibson70 said:
I know a young man who has DLA and it is means tested. (I cannot name him for some reason). His dad is worth about £500m. Surely he can 'afford' to sort his boy out with the money?!
Ridiculous!
DLA is not means tested. And why should one adult be responsible for funding another adult, just because they are related. If you think they should, why just his son. Should he financially sort out his brothers/sisters. Or cousins. Where does it stop? Nephew? 4th cousin twice removed?Ridiculous!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff