spook Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 But given free choice you wouldn't would you? Especially if you are getting on in years and have a few bob as it sounds like Spook does. What are you saving up for Spook? Can't take it with you, old chap. We do have nice things, our house, our car, nice holidays and things like that but when it comes to such things as heating the house, why not keep warm by wearing appropriate clothing rather than waste money heating the house to match the cloths we wear in the warm months? Then there's our weekly food budget. As people grow old their nutritional needs change. We really can manage and manage very well on a weekly budget of £30. It means shopping at the local markets and far outlets OK we drive to them but if we were younger and relying on tax payers to meet our needs. Cycling would be one option and people living off the wages and income of others have time on their hands. Food banks? Totally unnecessary. They create their own 'customers' and subsidise the existing tax payers hand outs. 'Soup kitchens' are a different matter. For the dysfunctional and even those who waste their hand outs on non essentials such places could provide the safety net to what should be nothing more than a safety net. That being said, and meant, we do treat ourselves from time to time. An occasional trip to Waitrose for some nice luxuries from the Deli counter for example. Or splurge on some of the wonderful range of breads and Danish cooked in store at the Lidl near us. http://www.lidl.co.uk/en/5690.htm The bottom line is that if people buy junk food and suchlike they will be wasting money and not getting the most nutritional value for what they spend. One thing that I do believe is that attention should be given during schooling to teaching kids how to manage a household, how to budget, and how to cook. Also how to manage their lives not on their wants - but on what they have and how to recognise what they can get and do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 One word, PK, GOOD. It's how it should be. You're clearly pleased that the poorest in the society you live in have been hit hardest by this 'one-nation' budget. You're really quite disgusting, aren't you. I trust you noticed the lack of a question mark in the above sentence... I'm pleased that the people who can only get by on tax payers money are to see their standard of living now being taken on a road that hopefully will result in the only getting the bare essentials and not subsidised to a living standard they do not deserve. Look, there will always be winners and losers but to have the winners subsidise the losers to live to a standard their status does not deserve is simply wrong. What's more it means that there is far less motivation for the losers to better themselves and if the opportunity does not exist then basically tough. That's life, but what I do see is a whole lot of foreigners coming over here, many of whom work, and a whole lot of able bodied Brits who could do those jobs but don't see the need because they don't need to - BUT THEY SHOULD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 That being said, and meant, we do treat ourselves from time to time. An occasional trip to Waitrose for some nice luxuries from the Deli counter for example. Or splurge on some of the wonderful range of breads and Danish cooked in store at the Lidl near us. You forgot to mention the sheer luxurious gratification that comes from eating an ice-cream in the Asda car-park... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 That being said, and meant, we do treat ourselves from time to time. An occasional trip to Waitrose for some nice luxuries from the Deli counter for example. Or splurge on some of the wonderful range of breads and Danish cooked in store at the Lidl near us. You forgot to mention the sheer luxurious gratification that comes from eating an ice-cream in the Asda car-park... But for us it is! A Magnum, which is what it was, isn't exactly inexpensive. Not as nice ice cream as I remember Manx Ices in the 60's, or even Wards, but certainly a treat. You see when you do live to what you need, as opposed to what you might want, when you DO treat yourself it is a REAL treat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Why not wear sackcloth and ashes and parade up and down with a large placard stating "BRING BACK THE WORKHOUSE" or similar...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Why not wear sackcloth and ashes and parade up and down with a large placard stating "BRING BACK THE WORKHOUSE" or similar...? In fact I can see that communal living for people relying on tax payers to provide them with the basics of life rather than being maintained in individual houses has much to commend it and before anyone howls 'troll!' I'm being deadly serious. Communal living with the people working to the extent that they are able to offset the costs IMO has a great deal going for it. People depending on others to pay for their very lives should not have or expect the same standard of living as those who provide for themselves. As for 'sackcloth and ashes', living in a modest manner is hardly that. But why should we splash out on luxuries as a way of life? For that matter why should anyone? Granted we could live to a much higher standard if we wished to but why? It is by living frugally all our married life that we acquired our first house and paid off the 25 year mortgage in just under 5. It is by managing our money that we built up the business that we now have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 No pockets in a shroud spooky...you hateful bag of piss and vinegar...no wonder your cult is dying out. People are seeing the cult members for the charlatans they really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 No pockets in a shroud spooky...you hateful bag of piss and vinegar...no wonder your cult is dying out. People are seeing the cult members for the charlatans they really are. No, there are no pockets in a shroud but there are kids and grandkids to benefit from what people do in this life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Spooky, thought I remembered you posting on a thread re inheritance tax that you were all in favour and gave the impression that it was undesirable to pass on wealth to your children/grandchildren , GD , if memory serves, shared your view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Spooky, thought I remembered you posting on a thread re inheritance tax that you were all in favour and gave the impression that it was undesirable to pass on wealth to your children/grandchildren , GD , if memory serves, shared your view? I see no problem with a tax on wealth passed on to kids, but that does not mean that being able to pass on an inheritance to them is a reason to not do ones best to accrue a worthwhile estate. There is also no reason not to gift a part of ones estate to ones kids while alive, and doing so is entirely reasonable and sensible. What I do strongly disagree with is using dodgy means to deliberately avoid tax for its own sake. In fact having gifted a portion of our estate to our kids we are now seriously considering leaving the remainder to our church rather than just a portion, and may indeed do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Surely disposing of one's assets prior to 'conking out" is a method of (legal) tax evasion. What one does with one's assets is entirely one's own concern but I would hesitate to leave them to a charitable organisation/ trust as the Trustees , it would appear in my limited experience, seldom share the same vision as the benefactor( particularly if the bank manager/accountant/solicitor are made 'trustees') . Just saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted July 12, 2015 Author Share Posted July 12, 2015 Spooky, thought I remembered you posting on a thread re inheritance tax that you were all in favour and gave the impression that it was undesirable to pass on wealth to your children/grandchildren , GD , if memory serves, shared your view? I have no family, so my few shillings go first of all to look after any pets, then to military charities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 So spooks view is that vile, dirty scrounges should never be given something for nothing... ...unless they're related to him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Surely disposing of one's assets prior to 'conking out" is a method of (legal) tax evasion. What one does with one's assets is entirely one's own concern but I would hesitate to leave them to a charitable organisation/ trust as the Trustees , it would appear in my limited experience, seldom share the same vision as the benefactor( particularly if the bank manager/accountant/solicitor are made 'trustees') . Just saying If the objective of gifting was simply to avoid tax would be tax avoidance but if the intent was primarily to pass on financial security to ones kids then it is not. When it comes to the remainder then I would have left a portion to the RNLI but having seen the RNLI send British boats paid for by British contributors for use around British shores along with other RNLI resources to Africa when there was a flood that immediately became a no no for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 So spooks view is that vile, dirty scrounges should never be given something for nothing... ...unless they're related to him None of my family are as you describe. If any were they would get nothing from us no matter how close. Those who are should indeed be given nothing other than the basic requirements of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.