Why do tax payers pay more for leisure?
Discussion
A bit confused really....
Why do people who work have to pay more to use public lesiure facilities than someone who doesn't ?
e.g If you claim benefits for not working you can use leisure facilities cheaper than someone who actually works and contributes towards the tax system (an extra £2 for an hour).
But why is this? Surely it should be the same price for everyone or in an ideal world, cheaper for those working as it's their money that allowed the facility to be built in the first place?
Why do people who work have to pay more to use public lesiure facilities than someone who doesn't ?
e.g If you claim benefits for not working you can use leisure facilities cheaper than someone who actually works and contributes towards the tax system (an extra £2 for an hour).
But why is this? Surely it should be the same price for everyone or in an ideal world, cheaper for those working as it's their money that allowed the facility to be built in the first place?
Monki said:
A bit confused really....
Why do people who work have to pay more to use public lesiure facilities than someone who doesn't ?
e.g If you claim benefits for not working you can use leisure facilities cheaper than someone who actually works and contributes towards the tax system (an extra £2 for an hour).
But why is this? Surely it should be the same price for everyone or in an ideal world, cheaper for those working as it's their money that allowed the facility to be built in the first place?
Because in Nu Labour La La Land every penny you earn, will ever earn and have ever earned belongs to the state, this is just another way of extracting it from you..Why do people who work have to pay more to use public lesiure facilities than someone who doesn't ?
e.g If you claim benefits for not working you can use leisure facilities cheaper than someone who actually works and contributes towards the tax system (an extra £2 for an hour).
But why is this? Surely it should be the same price for everyone or in an ideal world, cheaper for those working as it's their money that allowed the facility to be built in the first place?
Monki said:
A bit confused really....
Why do people who work have to pay more to use public lesiure facilities than someone who doesn't ?
e.g If you claim benefits for not working you can use leisure facilities cheaper than someone who actually works and contributes towards the tax system (an extra £2 for an hour).
But why is this? Surely it should be the same price for everyone or in an ideal world, cheaper for those working as it's their money that allowed the facility to be built in the first place?
You obviously assume that paying taxes should result in a better service for you personally.Why do people who work have to pay more to use public lesiure facilities than someone who doesn't ?
e.g If you claim benefits for not working you can use leisure facilities cheaper than someone who actually works and contributes towards the tax system (an extra £2 for an hour).
But why is this? Surely it should be the same price for everyone or in an ideal world, cheaper for those working as it's their money that allowed the facility to be built in the first place?
It's never worked like that.
Monki said:
not really, I just don't see why tax payers should pay more for services that their money has provided, when someone who has contributed nothing receives a reduction.
You have raised a fundamental question on the purpose of taxation. Is it a direct payment for a service that YOU wish to use or are likely to use or is it to fund services that others can use but that you may never avail of (or even be entitled to avail of)?jesusbuiltmycar said:
Because in Nu Labour La La Land every penny you earn, will ever earn and have ever earned belongs to the state, this is just another way of extracting it from you..
It has been going on longer than that.As the fact is the scroungers have more rights than you, who pays for the scroungers.
At least the leasure facilities are identical.Eric Mc said:
Monki said:
not really, I just don't see why tax payers should pay more for services that their money has provided, when someone who has contributed nothing receives a reduction.
You have raised a fundamental question on the purpose of taxation. Is it a direct payment for a service that YOU wish to use or are likely to use or is it to fund services that others can use but that you may never avail of (or even be entitled to avail of)?Aforementioned benefits-claimants get not only the benefits paid directly to them, but other 'benefits', such as the reduced-cost leisure facilities.
It's an interesting point, and serves to highlight the fact that those on benefits have the playing field tilted firmly in their favour compared with those who earn their living, much to the disappointment of those paying their taxes.
Oli.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff