Note: (my additions / alterations from his original) [my comments]
First, Parliament encourages people to spend beyond their means and (when) they can't pay it back Parliament blames the banks for giving loans.
Now we have a health organisation (NHS) suggesting that the tax payer gives money to those who abuse their bodies.
Those that smoke choose to smoke. It is not forced upon them. The individual makes that choice knowing the consequences of their action. If the tax payer paid them for 6 or 12 months (as has been suggested) what is going to stop them start smoking again when the free hand outs stop? If they want to have more money in their pockets and better health they have that choice and should not be paid to do so.
Those that are overweight are a different matter. Can the medical profession tell the difference between medical conditions and gluttony? If so, the medical conditions should be treated and gluttony should not. Gluttony is an individual's choice; it's a matter of will power. It is the people's choice, leave it to the people.
[I totally agree with this. My overeating is my fault; my responsibility. The fact I can't lose weight when dieting / increasing exercise may be medical. Two different issues. I think it's a disgrace that alcoholics like George Best get liver transplants. If you abuse your body and fail to change your ways why expect free treatment for the damage you have inflicted?]
The only people supporting the Government in these hard times are the savers in the country. [Supporting financially, not supportive]
For being prudent and saving, the returns are almost nil. This is because the biggest borrower (the government) cannot afford interest rates to rise. Therefore, in the long term, the interest rate must be almost zero.
Savers need to make a stand and remove from banks and Building Societies all their savings earning 1% or less - you can always put it in a bank safe deposit scheme.
What would be the Government's response? After all, the Government has made it cheaper for individuals and businesses to borrow money - cheaper mortgages - they have made it easier to go bankrupt so you can live the high life and the savers have to pay for it.
When is the Government going to do something for savers?
Parliament should stop whinging about bankers bonuses and put their own house in order. Stop all bonuses in local government and ministry departments. After all, they do not make a profit for the country.
Why should a person working in local (a) local authority be paid up to £80 per month and 43p per mile because they use their own car for work when in the private sector you would be very lucky to get (just) the 43p per mile?
If our armed forces get paid £15-£20,000 PA with no bonus why are people in the Ministry of Defense paid approx 4 times as much plus a bonus on top?
Pensions - the Government gives tax incentives to save in a pension scheme; therefore you give money to the pension scheme provider. The more one saves the greater the gift from the Government therefore benefiting the rich (who can afford higher contributions) rather than the poor - looking after your rich friend again!
As far as I understand (it), when an individual dies so does his pension - unless that person opted to have a named spouse so the pension would carry on for another 5 years. So all that tax payer's money that went into the pension (fund) is now added to the pension provider.
Would it not be better for a pension scheme to benefit those less well off, say those earning less than £35,000 PA (whilst) those earning above (would have to) save for themselves?
Who looks after the interests of the people who live in England?
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own Assemblies but we have no independant body.
[I totally agree; and why is it "racist" to consider myself English? The Welsh can be Welsh, the Cornish can even be Cornish but I can't be English? Even English as a school subject has been renamed "literacy."]
Why should people in England subsidise the other areas of the Union?
- Prescription Charges
- Hospital Parking
- Tuition Fees
A better and fairer system of raising tax is required instead of Council Tax because like rates system it is unfair.
If you live in the South East you will pay more because someone says your house is valued more than (a virtually identical house) in another part of the country.
If you do not change the Council Tax the money raised should be spent by that authority and not given to another authority so they do not have to raise their Council Tax!
If you have two people per taxable house (they) pay the same as a family of four or more wage earners. In your "fair society" this cannot be allowed to continue.
[My parents would've been better off under Margaret Thatcher's Poll Tax. Why should people be penalised for having the good fortune to live in a higher value home? The house you live in does not always reflect your wealth. My parents were never high wage earners but bought their house as a fixer-upper, worked hard, scrimped and saved, the value went up and - hey presto! - they lost out to the tax man!]
All (political) parties look out for their rich friends. It's about time someone looked after the not so well off.
Why should a person who is rich enough (get away with not paying) his due tax because he can employ someone to form a scheme not to pay tax?
The last time I brought this up with my MP I was told that the country needs entrepreneurs to make money for the country. Entrepreneurs are paid well enough in salaries, bonuses, shares and any scheme they think of to make more money. They should all pay tax on all earnings made from other people in this country.
If you took tax from all the rich people who avoid it at the moment perhaps you could pay off the defecit in (as little as) one year and not have to cut benefits to the poor.
Government departments and local authorities should still be cut to save the tax payer (from) paying more and more.
There. I hope you enjoyed my dad's rant.
Let me leave you with this thought: We are taught that everyone is equal and should be treated accordingly and yet by doing so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Those in the middle miss out even more. They miss out on the incentives offered to the rich and the benefits given to the poor.
There is a reason why Robin Hood is such an enduring folk hero. His tale is one of redressing the balance; of taking from those who can afford it and giving to those who can least afford to give.
