God knows how many other thousands / millions of people who have their housing paid for
===========================================================
Why leave it to God?
If only God knows how many thousands/millions of people have their housing paid for, then only God knows how much it costs, and whether it has a significant impact on the economy. Yet you’ve decided, without knowing how much it costs, that it does.
There is a direct correlation between wealth inequality and the size of the prison population, one of many examples of how what you save on the swings, you lose on the roundabouts. In the UK, it costs 140k to create a prison place, and 40k a year to keep somebody in it (and that doesn’t include the policing costs, or the costs of the actual crimes)....so often, making cuts can be a false economy
The countries with the highest levels of inequality have the highest prison populations. Countries such as Japan and Norway, with low levels of inequality, also have lower prison populations (and are also richer than us, as it happens)
What’s the alternative, leave the kids homeless, and begging on the street, like in some third-world country?
Incidentally, the studies that work out these stats always count the UK as a country with high inequality and a small welfare state, which is odd, because the perception amongst a lot of the population appears to be that it is some kind of Eldorado for poor people, where you only have to ask, in order to get.
===========================================================
Its like saying rich people should pay more for a pint of beer or to get on a train. That cant be fair, surely?
===========================================================
Every country in the world uses progressive taxation. Are you suggesting a flat-tax, instead?
We’ve developed the notion that progressive taxation is some kind of anti-business punishment, even though we are a low-tax economy.
It’s not a punishment, businesses already get lots of concessions in order to encourage entrepreneurship. They benefit from limited-liabitlity laws(so the owner is not fully liable if his business goes bust), exemption from taxes for business expenses, and the lowest corporation tax levels of any of the G7 countries.
If you’re going to make the argument that progressive taxation is unfair, then let’s scrap the limited-liability laws, because that’s not fair either. And an employee can’t offset his commuting and travelling expenses against tax, but a business can, is that any more fair?
It’s fine to encourage enterepreneurship, we do need the jobs, but “business leaders” now appear to be starting to think they shouldn’t pay any tax at all, and that any rise in their tax, in order to help us cope with a deep recession, is “anti-business”. We’ve shifted to the view that only people who run businesses contribute to the economy, which is tranparently b0110x.
Was it “anti-business” when we bailed the banks out, with tax-payers’ money? They weren’t whining about taxes then, were they?....though it hasn’t taken them long to get back on track.
Top-rate income tax in Russia is 15%, and corporation tax is the same as it is here, so why are so many wealthy Russians coming to live here? Once they’re here, their money is safe, and they benefit from a stable judicial system and Police force, a good education system, good transport and comms links...all the things that businesses need in order to thrive, and all paid for out of taxation.
When we’re in a war, we take the view that we’re all in it together, but when we’re in a recession, we take the view that we mustn’t let it affect the rich, and the poor can go fvck themselves, as they deserve to be poor. The rich can only be incentivised to work if they get more money, and the poor can only be incentivised to work if they get less.
It’s pathetically transparent that “business leaders” have taken over our democracy.
They’ve bought it. It used to be one-man-one-vote, but now it’s one-pound-one-vote, and if we ask them for any contribution whatsoever, they get their rich allies in the Press to start screaming “anti-business”.
Don’t get me wrong, I personally would benefit a lot if we had a flat-tax (and there are some “businesses leaders” and “think-tanks” who do want that), but I also know a scam when I see one.
Nigel Farage to remain UKIP Leader.
So we can add liar to our description of Nigel.
Sizzle,
Earn more, pay more. Don't be selfish.
=================
But if you earn more you WILL pay more, even if the percentage is the same for everybody, i.e 20% of 40k is higher than 20% of 20k. Why should anyone have to pay a higher proportion than anyone else?
As in my example, why should a rich person pay £4.50 for a pint, and an average earner pay £3.50?
That wouldn't be fair just as much as increasing the percentage wouldnt be.
So we can add liar to our description of Nigel.
You can if you want,but he actually handed in his resignation which was not accepted,if you couldn't see what was going to happen you should go and lie under Miliband's tablet.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Get down the spoons,John Smiths £2.50 a pint.
Sizzle, you're obviously a good poster to these boards and well liked by the majority, but you're so irrational when it comes to politics that it becomes pointless debating with you.
I've never come across somebody so irrationally left-wing in all my life.
But if you earn more you WILL pay more, even if the percentage is the same for everybody, i.e 20% of 40k is higher than 20% of 20k. Why should anyone have to pay a higher proportion than anyone else?
============================================================
Well, I thought we were getting rid of unfairness?
Why, in that case, should anyone have to pay more than anybody else, let alone a higher proportion?
Same amount for everybody, and if you don’t earn enough to pay for your share of healthcare or schooling, then fvck it, you don’t get it. Come to think of it, why don’t we just scrap tax?
Since you’ve already said that you’re “far from a high earner”, I suspect that you’d be fvcked, under that system, since I am almost certainly subsidising you. But then again, there is always a market for child-labour, and we shouldn’t put any obstacles in the way of the market, so maybe your kids could help you pay your way. (though I suspect they wouldn’t be paid very much).
When we scrap limited-liability, should we make the bankers pay back the 2007 debts from their own pockets, or do you think it would be unfair to apply this law retrospectively?
Anyway, you could put all these policies together , and form your own Party....perhaps call it the "Party for the Return of Nineteenth Century Ideas", or something like that.
groovy
"he actually handed in his resignation"
Who to? Effectively Farage is U.K.I.P and even if that were not the case and there really was a anyone else they couldn't make him stay on.
No, Farage has simply proven to be what he has spent the last few years decrying, a typical shameless, untrustworthy, two faced politician.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Wessie,
1. Why leave it to God?
If only God knows how many thousands/millions of people have their housing paid for, then only God knows how much it costs, and whether it has a significant impact on the economy.
2. Every country in the world uses progressive taxation. Are you suggesting a flat-tax, instead?
==========================
1. It’s just a saying – I don’t even believe in God. It’s just a way of saying I don’t know the exact figures – but I know there are loads.
2. I can certainly see the logic to having a flat-tax rate but that is not what I’m saying here. I’m saying I don’t think the rich should be held accountable to help any more than they already do. I think in the standard case scenario (I’m aware there are exceptions) high earners pay enough as it is – they shouldn’t be financially punished any more simply because they may have worked harder, or even because their parents did – and they inherited it, or because they have simply fallen on their feet. They contribute more because (as I said to Sizzle) a flat percentage of any amount goes up higher as the wage goes up – plus they pay a higher percentage on some of what they earn - we do not need to increase their income tax any more.
It’s the benefit píss-takers we need to crack down on – not punish the people who do actually contribute.
It’s just a way of saying I don’t know the exact figures
============================================================
Yes, that’s what I was getting at, I didn’t mean God literally. You don’t know the figures, but you’ve decided to believe the opinions that are dependent upon them, anyway.
============================================================
they shouldn’t be financially punished any more simply because they may have worked harder,
============================================================
Taxation isn’t a “financial punishment”, it’s a contribution to the society that provided the environment in which you got the opportunity to get rich. (Warren Buffet has made the same point, saying that he wouldn’t be a billionaire investor if he’d been born in the third-world).
Progressive taxation is widely accepted throughout the world, even in the US. There will be differing opinions as the extent to which they should be taxed, but our society has re-organised itself to award huge pay-rises to “business leaders” even when they fail, and then to award them tax-cuts on top of that. The stats demonstrating this are overwhelming. It is not “anti-business” to point this out.
The ridiculous culmination of this was when the banks failed spectacularly, and the taxpayer had to bail them out (socialism for the rich), after which they carried on as normal, and started awarding themselves huge bonuses again, all the while screaming “anti-business” if anybody said “Er.......what?”
You make a direct correlation between working hard and getting rich, and that would be fine if there was always a direct correlation, but if people are getting rewarded for failing, that isn’t what’s going on, is it? Do you get huge pay-rises for failing? And lots of people work hard and never get rich...it is not a direct correlation.
These are not particularly left-wing views, the point has been made by billionaires like Nick Hanauer, John Caudwell and George Soros. There is also quite a lot of evidence to suggest that it is detrimental to the economy as a whole, and it certainly means you have to spend a lot of money locking more people up.
============================================================
It’s the benefit píss-takers we need to crack down on – not punish the people who do actually contribute.
============================================================
I don’t doubt that there are benefit-p.iss-takers (eg the Royal Family), but before you decide that we should organise our economy around them, you would need to work out how much they actually cost the economy, and how many of them are taking the p.iss.
JSA and Income Support cost around 6bn, and this government is borrowing 90bn a year, so even if you starved anybody who didn’t have a job, you’d still have another 84bn to find.
It is not that much to ask, in a time of deep recession (which was after all caused by “business leaders” in the first place), for people to chip in a proportionate amount of their income to a society from which they have benefitted enormously, so that 4m children don’t have to grow up below the poverty line (and all the problems that will cause later).
If you are going to argue that it is “unfair”, then maybe it is “unfair” that they are also subsidising you, and we should cut ALL subsidy. The position of many people seems to be that it’s ok for the rich to subsidise them, but a bit too much to ask that they subsidise people lower down the economic ladder, as well. From where the rich are sitting, you're one of the p.iss-takers.
It is not as if this sudden surge in inequality has been justified by a boost in the economy...economic growth has been sluggish. The UK has more billionaires per-capita than any other country in the world, and more children living below the poverty-line than all but two of the other EU countries (ie. two of the poorest).
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
The Ace,
Also Chicken higher rate taxation is incremental, of you earn £150k you only pay higher rate above certain thresholds, you're still entitled to the same earnings on say your first £35k as someone who earns £35k per annum.
=========================
Yeah I work in the Life and Pensions industry (boring ) so I know this only too well, and I did previously write this paragraph to be fair:
“They contribute more because (as I said to Sizzle) a flat percentage of any amount goes up higher as the wage goes up – plus they pay a higher percentage on some of what they earn”.
Basically, the proportion someone pays would increase as their wages go up. The standard rate is 20% between £10,600 to £31,785, so someone who earns £30k would already pay more tax than someone who earns £20k (this is quite reasonable – and expected), then they would pay 40% on earnings between £31,786 to £150,000 and then 45% on anything > £150,000. I’m not totally against this but this is quite enough. If someone has worked hard to earn say, £100k per year; they would be paying 40% on £68,215 of their hard earned cash, handing over £27,286 to the tax man straight away (not even taking into account the 20% they have also paid on the £21,184 (with £10,600 being completely tax free, of course)).
Plus, the government, to my knowledge, haven’t focused more on benefit fraud than anything else – this was just a point I raised by me as a reason why the rich should not have to hand down any more than they do already. Why should a Barrister, who worked hard at school, studied hard at Uni, applies himself to get a decent job, who now gets up at 6am every day, returns home at 7pm, have to pay over £30k per year to others who are content to ‘stick’ living on a basic handout for doing nothing?
And I never said the country’s first priority is to sort out the benefit scroungers, so I don’t know where you are getting this from. But it’s certainly an area that could do with a massive shake up. And people need to stop begrudging people being richer than themselves.
As for food banks, yes it may be degrading for someone to feel they have to go to a food bank to feed their family but at least they are available. I’d be more concerned if we did just let these people starve – but the fact is they are getting fed for free – not sure that should count as a negative against any government. Hopefully, in time, we can stop the need for food banks altogether but the fact they are there to support all the needy families is a good thing – not bad.
Sizzle,
Benefit scroungers? Start with The Royal Family
======================
I think there is proof to back up the Royal family bring in far more money than they cost the tax payer. Every time one of them gets married or drops a kid out (for example) it probably puts billions into the economy from memorabilia, tourism etc.
I’m not sure the Queen had 3 kids simply to get a bigger house...
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I think there is proof to back up the Royal family bring in far more money than they cost the tax payer
===========================================================
That’s another whopper swallowed whole!
There is no way of calculating this: it relies on the assumption that the tourists who visit Buckingham Palace wouldn’t otherwise come to London if the Royal Family weren’t there.
But more tourists visit France than visit the UK, and there are a lot of visitor-numbers to Versailles with no King living there.
The ‘costs’ given for the Royal Family do not include security, and I would imagine having a brigade of Guards outside your house costs a few quid, don’t you? (along with hordes of ‘protection’ staff). They also offset the income from the Duchy of Cornwall as ‘private income’, even though the Duchy of Cornwall was...er..... given to them by the State.
As for the commemorative plates they sell, I imagine if you gave millions to any family, along with some palaces, and a revenue-generating piece of land the size of the Duchy of Cornwall, they would probably be able to rustle up some kind of business revenue from it .
I’m not exactly a revolutionary, and I’m not even anti-monarchist (since people seem to enjoy them, bless), but do you really imagine that the people who sell you this bvllsh.it have no agenda whatsoever?
You don't check anything you're told...
Wessie,
You tell me there’s no way of calculating it in the same post as telling me I’ve swallowed a whopper, and then proceed to argue against the point. This is hypocrisy at its absolute best . If your opinion is that it’s impossible to tell either way, why are you even forming an opinion against the suggestion? It can’t be proven (according to your theory), remember .
Anyway, my point was that I wouldn’t put the Queen or any of the other Royals in the same bracket as the local hussy who has simply planned their lifestyle, earnings, freebies, and what size home they can get, around how many kids they push out – and how much money they can take ponce off the state.
On one of the floors in the building next door to mine there’s a disability benefit assessment centre, and I often see people barely able to walk, using crutches or a wheelchair to go in, then I see them walking unaided round the corner when out of sight. These people are plain and simple benefit cheats. They would rather earn a minimal wage for doing fúck all than go out to work.
PS. I don’t have to check this out anywhere, I see it with my own eyes .
Talking of swallowing whoppers, I fancy a Burger King now…
Can't say I'm.much of a royalist but if the alternative is just another self serving career politician we might just as well stick with the royals
"On one of the floors in the building next door to mine there’s a disability benefit assessment centre, and I often see people barely able to walk, using crutches or a wheelchair to go in, then I see them walking unaided round the corner when out of sight. These people are plain and simple benefit cheats."
Or there could be some phenomenal "healers" in the centre.
Or the people you see are in fact Keyser Soze.
Or there could be some phenomenal "healers" in the centre.
=================
...I didnt think of that.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
Russell Brand
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 11/5/15
God knows how many other thousands / millions of people who have their housing paid for
===========================================================
Why leave it to God?
If only God knows how many thousands/millions of people have their housing paid for, then only God knows how much it costs, and whether it has a significant impact on the economy. Yet you’ve decided, without knowing how much it costs, that it does.
There is a direct correlation between wealth inequality and the size of the prison population, one of many examples of how what you save on the swings, you lose on the roundabouts. In the UK, it costs 140k to create a prison place, and 40k a year to keep somebody in it (and that doesn’t include the policing costs, or the costs of the actual crimes)....so often, making cuts can be a false economy
The countries with the highest levels of inequality have the highest prison populations. Countries such as Japan and Norway, with low levels of inequality, also have lower prison populations (and are also richer than us, as it happens)
What’s the alternative, leave the kids homeless, and begging on the street, like in some third-world country?
Incidentally, the studies that work out these stats always count the UK as a country with high inequality and a small welfare state, which is odd, because the perception amongst a lot of the population appears to be that it is some kind of Eldorado for poor people, where you only have to ask, in order to get.
===========================================================
Its like saying rich people should pay more for a pint of beer or to get on a train. That cant be fair, surely?
===========================================================
Every country in the world uses progressive taxation. Are you suggesting a flat-tax, instead?
We’ve developed the notion that progressive taxation is some kind of anti-business punishment, even though we are a low-tax economy.
It’s not a punishment, businesses already get lots of concessions in order to encourage entrepreneurship. They benefit from limited-liabitlity laws(so the owner is not fully liable if his business goes bust), exemption from taxes for business expenses, and the lowest corporation tax levels of any of the G7 countries.
If you’re going to make the argument that progressive taxation is unfair, then let’s scrap the limited-liability laws, because that’s not fair either. And an employee can’t offset his commuting and travelling expenses against tax, but a business can, is that any more fair?
It’s fine to encourage enterepreneurship, we do need the jobs, but “business leaders” now appear to be starting to think they shouldn’t pay any tax at all, and that any rise in their tax, in order to help us cope with a deep recession, is “anti-business”. We’ve shifted to the view that only people who run businesses contribute to the economy, which is tranparently b0110x.
Was it “anti-business” when we bailed the banks out, with tax-payers’ money? They weren’t whining about taxes then, were they?....though it hasn’t taken them long to get back on track.
Top-rate income tax in Russia is 15%, and corporation tax is the same as it is here, so why are so many wealthy Russians coming to live here? Once they’re here, their money is safe, and they benefit from a stable judicial system and Police force, a good education system, good transport and comms links...all the things that businesses need in order to thrive, and all paid for out of taxation.
When we’re in a war, we take the view that we’re all in it together, but when we’re in a recession, we take the view that we mustn’t let it affect the rich, and the poor can go fvck themselves, as they deserve to be poor. The rich can only be incentivised to work if they get more money, and the poor can only be incentivised to work if they get less.
It’s pathetically transparent that “business leaders” have taken over our democracy.
They’ve bought it. It used to be one-man-one-vote, but now it’s one-pound-one-vote, and if we ask them for any contribution whatsoever, they get their rich allies in the Press to start screaming “anti-business”.
Don’t get me wrong, I personally would benefit a lot if we had a flat-tax (and there are some “businesses leaders” and “think-tanks” who do want that), but I also know a scam when I see one.
posted on 11/5/15
Nigel Farage to remain UKIP Leader.
posted on 11/5/15
So we can add liar to our description of Nigel.
posted on 11/5/15
Sizzle,
Earn more, pay more. Don't be selfish.
=================
But if you earn more you WILL pay more, even if the percentage is the same for everybody, i.e 20% of 40k is higher than 20% of 20k. Why should anyone have to pay a higher proportion than anyone else?
As in my example, why should a rich person pay £4.50 for a pint, and an average earner pay £3.50?
That wouldn't be fair just as much as increasing the percentage wouldnt be.
posted on 11/5/15
So we can add liar to our description of Nigel.
You can if you want,but he actually handed in his resignation which was not accepted,if you couldn't see what was going to happen you should go and lie under Miliband's tablet.
posted on 11/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/5/15
Get down the spoons,John Smiths £2.50 a pint.
posted on 11/5/15
Sizzle, you're obviously a good poster to these boards and well liked by the majority, but you're so irrational when it comes to politics that it becomes pointless debating with you.
I've never come across somebody so irrationally left-wing in all my life.
posted on 11/5/15
But if you earn more you WILL pay more, even if the percentage is the same for everybody, i.e 20% of 40k is higher than 20% of 20k. Why should anyone have to pay a higher proportion than anyone else?
============================================================
Well, I thought we were getting rid of unfairness?
Why, in that case, should anyone have to pay more than anybody else, let alone a higher proportion?
Same amount for everybody, and if you don’t earn enough to pay for your share of healthcare or schooling, then fvck it, you don’t get it. Come to think of it, why don’t we just scrap tax?
Since you’ve already said that you’re “far from a high earner”, I suspect that you’d be fvcked, under that system, since I am almost certainly subsidising you. But then again, there is always a market for child-labour, and we shouldn’t put any obstacles in the way of the market, so maybe your kids could help you pay your way. (though I suspect they wouldn’t be paid very much).
When we scrap limited-liability, should we make the bankers pay back the 2007 debts from their own pockets, or do you think it would be unfair to apply this law retrospectively?
Anyway, you could put all these policies together , and form your own Party....perhaps call it the "Party for the Return of Nineteenth Century Ideas", or something like that.
posted on 11/5/15
groovy
"he actually handed in his resignation"
Who to? Effectively Farage is U.K.I.P and even if that were not the case and there really was a anyone else they couldn't make him stay on.
No, Farage has simply proven to be what he has spent the last few years decrying, a typical shameless, untrustworthy, two faced politician.
posted on 11/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/5/15
Wessie,
1. Why leave it to God?
If only God knows how many thousands/millions of people have their housing paid for, then only God knows how much it costs, and whether it has a significant impact on the economy.
2. Every country in the world uses progressive taxation. Are you suggesting a flat-tax, instead?
==========================
1. It’s just a saying – I don’t even believe in God. It’s just a way of saying I don’t know the exact figures – but I know there are loads.
2. I can certainly see the logic to having a flat-tax rate but that is not what I’m saying here. I’m saying I don’t think the rich should be held accountable to help any more than they already do. I think in the standard case scenario (I’m aware there are exceptions) high earners pay enough as it is – they shouldn’t be financially punished any more simply because they may have worked harder, or even because their parents did – and they inherited it, or because they have simply fallen on their feet. They contribute more because (as I said to Sizzle) a flat percentage of any amount goes up higher as the wage goes up – plus they pay a higher percentage on some of what they earn - we do not need to increase their income tax any more.
It’s the benefit píss-takers we need to crack down on – not punish the people who do actually contribute.
posted on 12/5/15
It’s just a way of saying I don’t know the exact figures
============================================================
Yes, that’s what I was getting at, I didn’t mean God literally. You don’t know the figures, but you’ve decided to believe the opinions that are dependent upon them, anyway.
============================================================
they shouldn’t be financially punished any more simply because they may have worked harder,
============================================================
Taxation isn’t a “financial punishment”, it’s a contribution to the society that provided the environment in which you got the opportunity to get rich. (Warren Buffet has made the same point, saying that he wouldn’t be a billionaire investor if he’d been born in the third-world).
Progressive taxation is widely accepted throughout the world, even in the US. There will be differing opinions as the extent to which they should be taxed, but our society has re-organised itself to award huge pay-rises to “business leaders” even when they fail, and then to award them tax-cuts on top of that. The stats demonstrating this are overwhelming. It is not “anti-business” to point this out.
The ridiculous culmination of this was when the banks failed spectacularly, and the taxpayer had to bail them out (socialism for the rich), after which they carried on as normal, and started awarding themselves huge bonuses again, all the while screaming “anti-business” if anybody said “Er.......what?”
You make a direct correlation between working hard and getting rich, and that would be fine if there was always a direct correlation, but if people are getting rewarded for failing, that isn’t what’s going on, is it? Do you get huge pay-rises for failing? And lots of people work hard and never get rich...it is not a direct correlation.
These are not particularly left-wing views, the point has been made by billionaires like Nick Hanauer, John Caudwell and George Soros. There is also quite a lot of evidence to suggest that it is detrimental to the economy as a whole, and it certainly means you have to spend a lot of money locking more people up.
============================================================
It’s the benefit píss-takers we need to crack down on – not punish the people who do actually contribute.
============================================================
I don’t doubt that there are benefit-p.iss-takers (eg the Royal Family), but before you decide that we should organise our economy around them, you would need to work out how much they actually cost the economy, and how many of them are taking the p.iss.
JSA and Income Support cost around 6bn, and this government is borrowing 90bn a year, so even if you starved anybody who didn’t have a job, you’d still have another 84bn to find.
It is not that much to ask, in a time of deep recession (which was after all caused by “business leaders” in the first place), for people to chip in a proportionate amount of their income to a society from which they have benefitted enormously, so that 4m children don’t have to grow up below the poverty line (and all the problems that will cause later).
If you are going to argue that it is “unfair”, then maybe it is “unfair” that they are also subsidising you, and we should cut ALL subsidy. The position of many people seems to be that it’s ok for the rich to subsidise them, but a bit too much to ask that they subsidise people lower down the economic ladder, as well. From where the rich are sitting, you're one of the p.iss-takers.
It is not as if this sudden surge in inequality has been justified by a boost in the economy...economic growth has been sluggish. The UK has more billionaires per-capita than any other country in the world, and more children living below the poverty-line than all but two of the other EU countries (ie. two of the poorest).
posted on 12/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/5/15
The Ace,
Also Chicken higher rate taxation is incremental, of you earn £150k you only pay higher rate above certain thresholds, you're still entitled to the same earnings on say your first £35k as someone who earns £35k per annum.
=========================
Yeah I work in the Life and Pensions industry (boring ) so I know this only too well, and I did previously write this paragraph to be fair:
“They contribute more because (as I said to Sizzle) a flat percentage of any amount goes up higher as the wage goes up – plus they pay a higher percentage on some of what they earn”.
Basically, the proportion someone pays would increase as their wages go up. The standard rate is 20% between £10,600 to £31,785, so someone who earns £30k would already pay more tax than someone who earns £20k (this is quite reasonable – and expected), then they would pay 40% on earnings between £31,786 to £150,000 and then 45% on anything > £150,000. I’m not totally against this but this is quite enough. If someone has worked hard to earn say, £100k per year; they would be paying 40% on £68,215 of their hard earned cash, handing over £27,286 to the tax man straight away (not even taking into account the 20% they have also paid on the £21,184 (with £10,600 being completely tax free, of course)).
Plus, the government, to my knowledge, haven’t focused more on benefit fraud than anything else – this was just a point I raised by me as a reason why the rich should not have to hand down any more than they do already. Why should a Barrister, who worked hard at school, studied hard at Uni, applies himself to get a decent job, who now gets up at 6am every day, returns home at 7pm, have to pay over £30k per year to others who are content to ‘stick’ living on a basic handout for doing nothing?
And I never said the country’s first priority is to sort out the benefit scroungers, so I don’t know where you are getting this from. But it’s certainly an area that could do with a massive shake up. And people need to stop begrudging people being richer than themselves.
As for food banks, yes it may be degrading for someone to feel they have to go to a food bank to feed their family but at least they are available. I’d be more concerned if we did just let these people starve – but the fact is they are getting fed for free – not sure that should count as a negative against any government. Hopefully, in time, we can stop the need for food banks altogether but the fact they are there to support all the needy families is a good thing – not bad.
posted on 13/5/15
Sizzle,
Benefit scroungers? Start with The Royal Family
======================
I think there is proof to back up the Royal family bring in far more money than they cost the tax payer. Every time one of them gets married or drops a kid out (for example) it probably puts billions into the economy from memorabilia, tourism etc.
I’m not sure the Queen had 3 kids simply to get a bigger house...
posted on 13/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/5/15
I think there is proof to back up the Royal family bring in far more money than they cost the tax payer
===========================================================
That’s another whopper swallowed whole!
There is no way of calculating this: it relies on the assumption that the tourists who visit Buckingham Palace wouldn’t otherwise come to London if the Royal Family weren’t there.
But more tourists visit France than visit the UK, and there are a lot of visitor-numbers to Versailles with no King living there.
The ‘costs’ given for the Royal Family do not include security, and I would imagine having a brigade of Guards outside your house costs a few quid, don’t you? (along with hordes of ‘protection’ staff). They also offset the income from the Duchy of Cornwall as ‘private income’, even though the Duchy of Cornwall was...er..... given to them by the State.
As for the commemorative plates they sell, I imagine if you gave millions to any family, along with some palaces, and a revenue-generating piece of land the size of the Duchy of Cornwall, they would probably be able to rustle up some kind of business revenue from it .
I’m not exactly a revolutionary, and I’m not even anti-monarchist (since people seem to enjoy them, bless), but do you really imagine that the people who sell you this bvllsh.it have no agenda whatsoever?
You don't check anything you're told...
posted on 14/5/15
Wessie,
You tell me there’s no way of calculating it in the same post as telling me I’ve swallowed a whopper, and then proceed to argue against the point. This is hypocrisy at its absolute best . If your opinion is that it’s impossible to tell either way, why are you even forming an opinion against the suggestion? It can’t be proven (according to your theory), remember .
Anyway, my point was that I wouldn’t put the Queen or any of the other Royals in the same bracket as the local hussy who has simply planned their lifestyle, earnings, freebies, and what size home they can get, around how many kids they push out – and how much money they can take ponce off the state.
On one of the floors in the building next door to mine there’s a disability benefit assessment centre, and I often see people barely able to walk, using crutches or a wheelchair to go in, then I see them walking unaided round the corner when out of sight. These people are plain and simple benefit cheats. They would rather earn a minimal wage for doing fúck all than go out to work.
PS. I don’t have to check this out anywhere, I see it with my own eyes .
Talking of swallowing whoppers, I fancy a Burger King now…
posted on 14/5/15
Can't say I'm.much of a royalist but if the alternative is just another self serving career politician we might just as well stick with the royals
posted on 14/5/15
"On one of the floors in the building next door to mine there’s a disability benefit assessment centre, and I often see people barely able to walk, using crutches or a wheelchair to go in, then I see them walking unaided round the corner when out of sight. These people are plain and simple benefit cheats."
Or there could be some phenomenal "healers" in the centre.
Or the people you see are in fact Keyser Soze.
posted on 14/5/15
Or there could be some phenomenal "healers" in the centre.
=================
...I didnt think of that.
posted on 14/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7