Let's hope Susan never needs to use a scooter

I WOULD like to take exception to the view expressed in Susan Cooper's letter in this week's paper.

From the tone of the letter I assume she is fit and well. Just imagine if every step you took caused you pain.

Walking any sort of distance is difficult to say the least.

So using a scooter is the only way you manage around town.

I am not a 'layabout', I work full-time and at the weekends I do some jobs around the house.

The down side is that I have fibromyalgia which means any sort of movement causes me pain.

I am on 25 pills a day for pain so my scooter is essential to me.

I don't say all scooter users are perfect, in fact there are a small minority who do abuse it, like all walks of life.

One last thing, I am not a small person but, if I use a scooter in a supermarket, I become invisible.

People just don't seem to see me, if they do then some of them take Susan's attitude and think I am a nuisance instead of a human being.

I hope, Susan, that you have a long life and never have the need to use a scooter!

Bruce Barker

Happaway Road Torquay

More confusion over tax

I EXPLAINED in my letter (HE, January 24) that people are not taxed according to whether they are a millionaire but on their income.

In the same paper, I read that millionaires will get a tax cut of £40,000 after next April!

The situation is that after next April the 50 per cent rate of tax will be replaced with 45 per cent on the same band. Taking the personal allowance into account a person will need to earn £158,105 before the higher rate starts.

So effectively for every £10,000 earned above that figure, the tax payer will save £500.

In order to save the quoted figure of £40,000, the tax payer would need to be earning in excess of £830,000pa.

It would be great if everybody paid their fair share of tax but several companies and very rich individuals can afford to pay advisors to find ways of reducing the amount of tax they pay often by using overseas shelters.

Recently, the press published the rate of tax paid by a recent Government leader and this was embarrassingly low. This was despite the millions being earned following his term in office and the public paying for his significant pension and security.

It would not be practical to apply different rates of corporation tax to companies/industries depending on how they had behaved.

However, there are other ways in which the banks can be punished. Eg a special levy /fine could be applied.

We must not forget that a large part of Lloyds and RBS is state owned so in the end the public would pay.

I consider that what some of the bankers did was worse than 'the rogue trader'.

The difference was that the latter went to prison and the bankers were given knighthoods.

Unfortunately, the last labour government failed to control the banks and left them free to act in a totally reckless manner and worse was to come when the rate fixing scandal was exposed.

Finally, the retirement pension has now been returned to a flat rate scheme just as it was from the beginning of the 20th century until April, 1961, when the graduated pension scheme started.

Since then the scheme has been continuously altered. Perhaps it will be better to go back to a flat rate scheme at a rate significantly higher than the current rate.

There has been a positive reaction to the changes but I am unable to guess at how many people will be better or worse off.

I do know that people will be able to understand what they are going to get and will be able to make their own arrangements to provide what they need on top of their flat rate pension.

A Taylor

Valley View Close

Torquay