Whitey Grandad

When Shirley Porter pursued policies that were designed to encourage votes to support her she was made to pay the money back to Westminster Council. Do you think there is anty chance of Gordon Brown paying back the billions that he spent on securing Labour votes?

Oh, if only.

Your words are much too wise to have any appeal to the 'want-it-now' generation. Please don't include me in the 'WE', I have given up cautioning the youngsters about taking on debt.

What the bankers did was not illegal, although rewarding excessive risk-taking was one of the causes of the banking crisis, but not the only one. Personally, I would prefer to see a strong manufacturing and design sector in our economy. In my opinion the banks should stick to providing a source of working capital and funds for investment. The labour governments were perfectly happy to rely on the banking and services sector to provide them with a cash cow during the 'boom' years.

Succintly put. What were we before and what are we now?

There is a lot of truth in what you say. It's strange that some people will begrudge bankers getting large sums of money yet admire footballers and pop stars who only kick a ball or write a few notes. Don't even get me started on JK Rowling and others.

The minimum wage has caused the loss of a couple of jobs as far as my business is concerned. We use outworkers and we have to pay them 25% more than the minimum wage in order that someone who is only working at 80% of the average will still receive the minimum hourly rate. This despite the fact that these people works at their own pace at home, can be watching the television whilst they are doing it and are perfectly happy to be doing the work at their old rates. This has pushed up my costs and I have lost sales because of it.

On a related note (do you see what I did there?) this is rather weird:

No, always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.

Calling them 'benefits' is perhaps the wrong terminology. How about rights?

There's nothing wrong with that. It is much simpler to give the same to everybody, and we are all equal, aren't we? As others have pointed out, 'we' get back far more from him in tax. Means-testing is iniquitous and discourages hard work and thrift.

How do you know that it hasn't? The level of benefits has a much greater effect than the minimum wage. Nobody receiving benefits is going to take a low-paid job if staying at home is more worthwhile.

Sorry, I was wrapped up in work. Am I too late?

Agreed, but there is abig difference between 'unable' and 'unwilling'.

There is nothing stopping you from donating to charity, which would be far more effective than giving it back to the government, and as an advantage you would remove some of your income from the higher tax rate! I can think of many worthy cause in health and education.

We use a local garage in Netley - Abbey Autos Hound Farm Hound Rd, Netley Abbey, SOUTHAMPTON, Hampshire SO31 5FS 023 8045 7013 Provided it's not too rusty, shouldn't cost more than about £40. Might be worth a call?

To modern governments we are all 'economic work units', or 'slaves' as they used to be called.

Because you are already paying a much higher amount of tax than people on lower incomes. Where would you stop? Should those who earn more pay more for their bread or cornflakes?

No need to apologise, but I do think that this proposal is a ridiculous idea. Penalising people who have tried that litle bit harder than most to get an education, who may have stayed in studying instead of going to the pub, who spent years in higher education whilst their contemporaries were out earning money and getting on to the career ladder, who put money aside when possible to save for a rainy day, is sending out the wrong message to society. Try to look after yourselves and we shall take money away from you, **** it up against the wall and we shall give money to you. There are plenty of other areas for making savings. How about the £8billion foreign aid money, some of which we give to China? And why ring-fence the NHS? Doubling their budget maid only a 30% improvement so cutting by 10% would never be noticed. I can think of a much fairer proposal: how about taking Child Benefit away from smokers?

It's a life-long contract.

Because we are all equal. The tax system already takes account of the differences in earnings. To take away these other 'benefits' amounts to yet another marginal tax. Where is the incentive to save for old age? Anyone with any sense would buy gold and keep it under the bed.

Because the costs to 'society' are a lot lower if everybody lives in nice family units.

Yes, I honestly know. But only because it was once in a question on 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire'.

I'll be there, if I remember.

Don't be silly. Even they are not that stupid.