[img] 
[/img]
[url= ]Click to embiggen[/url]
Get your head out of your arse and stop this attitude that any right wing views are simply made up. I work all over the country and every single City, town and village I go to is overflowing with Jeremy Kyle rejects. It's there to see, you don't have to read any newspapers. In fact, I don't read any newspapers!
Oh, I didn't believe it but now that you've provided actual anecdotal evidence 🙄
Employed bloke in annoyed at having to pay tax shocker...
Welcome to the tax-paying club.
LOOK. HARDLY ANY OF YOUR TAX IS USED TO SUPPORT THE UNEMPLOYED!!!
This was my first thought...
Do you honestly believe that even if they scrapped jobseekers allowance tomorrow your taxes would go down by even a pennie? Of course not. The money would go into funding something else or be wasted on duck ponds.
I know where you are coming from, but you need to do some proper research into where your money is spent if it bothers you that much. Or don't, ignore it, and enjoy what you earn.
Bit more detail on the tiny amount spent on benefits:
[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8512/8361851095_818227afbb.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/brf/8361851095/ ]Benefit spending breakdown 2011-2012[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/brf/ ]brf[/url], on Flickr
Get your head out of your arse and stop this attitude that any right wing views are simply made up. I work all over the country and every single City, town and village I go to is overflowing with Jeremy Kyle rejects. It's there to see, you don't have to read any newspapers. In fact, I don't read any newspapers!
Brilliant. So, any actual data? No thought not.
The OP should just stop reading the Daily Hate (Mail) - he'll feel much better for it.....
The real crime here is how craply paid many jobs are, not how cushy benefits are. There are huge companies making billions in profits who pay their ordinary staff so little that the state is basically subsidising their wages with benefits.
Spot on.
The state is effectively subsidising the profits of large corporations who pay its workers so poorly.
After pensions the DWP's next biggest spend is on working tax credits. People in work claim far more benefits than the unemployed
LOOK, HARDLY ANY OF YOUR TAXES PAYS FOR PEOPLE OF WORKING AGE NOT TO WORK.
IT'S A TINY PART OF THE GOVERNMENT BUDGET.
Read more widely.
Job seekers' allowance payments: £4.91bn
Total spending: £694.89bn
That's 0.7% of government spending. Work out what 0.7% of your tax bill is and we'll have a whip round for you.
wow. no i don't read any newspapers, i watch jeremy kyle though...Get your head out of your arse and stop this attitude that any right wing views are simply made up. I work all over the country and every single City, town and village I go to is overflowing with Jeremy Kyle rejects. It's there to see, you don't have to read any newspapers. In fact, I don't read any newspapers
The system is a bit of a mess at the moment in that the highest marginal rate* I am aware of is on earnings just above £100,000 which is when personal allowances are withdrawn, this leads to a marginal rate of 60%. There was a good article explaining this in the Spectator the other day [url= http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/03/forget-50p-scrap-the-60p-tax-rate/ ]here.[/url] If you are in this bracket, I would increase my pension contributions to take myself out of it.
* I believe there might be higher ones when you factor in withdrawal of benefits/tax credits, though the government are trying to sort this.
Should we mention yet that people on lower incomes pay out a greater proportion of their incomes at taxes?
[i]After pensions the DWP's next biggest spend is on working tax credits. People in work claim far more benefits than the unemployed
[/i]
HMRC pay tax credits, not DWP, but yeah, your point is valid.
I want my tax back! It's mine
No it's not.Should the government ask for its roads back?
Hmmm, a lot of roads are funded locally, so Council Tax comes into play here. I don't want to mix taxations.
I don't think my rant is either ill informed or a rant. It's what I see, what I read. The country is in trouble, granted, and I'm happy to do my bit. I also have no issue with supporting lower income people/families, or those genuinely seeking work.
But there is a JK generation out there that is choosing to be spoon fed by the state, and this is where my gripe is. I do think we could, and should get these people working. They need to earn the benefits they're being given.
As for tax being mine, well it sort of is. If I earn £x and get taxed at y% and the government alter the tax brackets to make either y a higher number, or kick in at a lower level (or both!) then my company don't compensate me - I just lose money I was once taking home.
It's what I see, what I read.
Read more widely.
I was going to post a rant as I think your assertions are misguided - but I think there'senough of that already
But i think maybe if you are working yor nads off and don't think you are getting enough back from it then the problem is with your employer not the tax regime. I have sympathy, been there, golden handcuffs
Maybe time for a chat for your boss.
Should we mention yet that people on lower incomes pay out a greater proportion of their incomes at taxes?
Really? My maths is a little rusty but I always thought 20% was smaller then 50%?
Maybe that where my argument is wrong then. God bless taxes increasing as you earn more.
Hmmm, a lot of roads are funded locally, so Council Tax comes into play here. I don't want to mix taxations.
60% of Council tax is spend on social issues. And councils get cash from central government, which they spend on roads.
But there is a JK generation out there that is choosing to be spoon fed by the state, and this is where my gripe is.
Except that there isn't. There are a small number of individuals but the idea of three generations of benefit-dependent families is a complete myth.
As for tax being mine, well it sort of is. If I earn £x and get taxed at y% and the government alter the tax brackets to make either y a higher number, or kick in at a lower level (or both!) then my company don't compensate me - I just lose money I was once taking home.
And aren't you lucky to be in the position for this to be the case? I'd love to earn enough to pay more tax.
We need to stop this "needy" and "gimme gimme" society where there are too many people choosing to live off the state.
Maybe, if wealth as distributed more evenly throughout society, then more people at the lower end of the scale would be paid better, and then working in a lower paid job would be more attractive a proposition. And maybe, if there was actually a living wage, the state would not have to subsidise employers who like to pay the absolute bare minimum they can get away with, knowing the state will fill in the gaps.
And maybe, if people earning £150,000+ a year, in a country with rising child poverty etc, were to say 'you know what, I don't actually need all this money, I could quite comfortably live on a lot less', then the surplus money could be used to pay those at the bottom end a decent wage.
And maybe, just maybe, if those fortunate enough to be earning far more than enough to live on stopped moaning and appreciated just how ****ing lucky they are in this world, the rest of us wouldn't have to put up with them whining on about how they are 'struggling' and how 'working isn't working any more'.
The answers are all there, people just don't want to listen to them.
Really? My maths is a little rusty but I always thought 20% was smaller then 50%?Maybe that where my argument is wrong then. God bless taxes increasing as you earn more.
Taxes. Not Income Tax.
But i think maybe if you are working yor nads off and don't think you are getting enough back from it then the problem is with your employer not the tax regime. I have sympathy, been there, golden handcuffs
Nope. I feel very privileged to have a well paid job. My issue is with how what is taken from me is spent, and how that burden is increasing.
[i]But there is a JK generation out there that is choosing to be spoon fed by the state[/i]
But is there though?
To be honest, I've no objection to there being some sort of compulsion involved in entitlement to Jobseekers Allowance, ut there need to be the jobs for people to do. 'Creating' jobs just skews the market and amongst other things causes problems for people who actually want to work by, typically, lowering wages.
And it's not a new phenomenon. The debate about the deserving vs undeserving poor has been going on for a couple of hundred years...
My issue is with how what is taken from me is spent, and how that burden is increasing.
And we've already seen that how you [i]think[/i] it's being spent isn't actually how it's being spent.
But there is a JK generation out there that is choosing to be spoon fed by the state, and this is where my gripe is. I do think we could, and should get these people working. They need to earn the benefits they're being given.
What are you basing this on?
As for tax being mine, well it sort of is. If I earn £x and get taxed at y% and the government alter the tax brackets to make either y a higher number, or kick in at a lower level (or both!) then my company don't compensate me - I just lose money I was once taking home.
your deluded!
My issue is with how what is taken from me is spent, and how that burden is increasing.
And we've already seen that how you think it's being spent isn't actually how it's being spent.
Well not really.
Is any of my income tax spent supporting even one person who is unwilling to work and wants to live on benefits?
If (ha ha) the answer is Yes then my issue remains valid.
Should we mention yet that people on lower incomes pay out a greater proportion of their incomes at taxes?
You could mention that but you'd almost certainly be guilty of cherry picking data if you found reason to support it. Any argument like that hinges on what definition you use for "lower incomes" and if you adjust that figure you'd almost certainly be able to come to any conclusion you wanted. For example anyone earing say £10000 would almost certainly be paying income tax and NI at an effective rate of less than 5%, assuming NO tax credits of any kind. Given that all subsequent spending is going to be subject a maximum tax rate of 20% (this assumes that everything else is subject to VAT at 20% a simplification I know) then this gives an effective income tax, NI and VAT rate of around 23%. My own effective income tax rate (not including NI, VAT, or any other Duty) is higher than that.
As I said, cherry pick the correct statistics and you can make it say whatever you want.
Remove somebody's choice to work or not and that gives you slave labour my friend.
I suppose they could be left to starve though if they were not prepared to work for their benefits.
Ahhh but the state funeral costs would have to be funded out of your tax then. Ahhhh this is terrible.
Toss pot
We need to stop this "needy" and "gimme gimme" society where there are too many people choosing to live off the state.
As other have said, the 'workers and scroungers' scenario was invented by the government, so you have someone to blame other than the government for your ever increasing taxes. It's a myth.
going back to the OP, you say you have gone into a new bracket, but only by a very small amount? then you'll only be taxed the new rate on that very small amount. Can't see the issue really, you'll still be getting paid more won't you.
Can't we force them to work or do something useful? Surely they could be made to do litter picking, maintaining public grounds etc. Something to add some value back to society and something that could save local government money.
No because that's forced labour/slavery.
How much do people who work doing those jobs get paid? Why should anyone else be paid any less? How is that fair?
Also:
Can't [b]we[/b] force [b]them[/b]
Do you see the problem here?
Just out of interest Dr s**** what do you actually do to earn your massive wedge ?
He works hard.
Remove somebody's choice to work or not and that gives you slave labour my friend.
Poor point well made sir.
I do not want to support the JK crowd, but the government forces me too. So, by being a hard working person I am forced into the paradigm you want to avoid for the non workers.
I'll go get me shackles adjusted and report in for a whipping with the boss man.
Here's the study that looked at the "culture of worklessness": http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/cultures-of-worklessness
... ok can't resist
Councils are mainly funded through central grant, council tax is a top up.
Education, NHS etc benefit society more widely. No education, no workforce etc.
Couple of links to a break down of the welfare budget for info -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jun/02/liberal-conservative-coalition-welfare
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/04/government-spending-department-2011-12
Using first source, total of £87billion out of gov spending of c£700billion, for a comparison NHS over £100bn Of the £87billion a big chunk is working tax credits, child benfit, disability living allowance
... and the country is in the poo is because a unregulated market did what unregulated markets do - growth, fall, consolidate. Fault of (labour) govt yes, fault of tax regime - no
Just out of interest Dr s**** what do you actually do to earn your massive wedge ?
He works hard.
😉
Well not really.Is any of my income tax spent supporting even one person who is unwilling to work and wants to live on benefits?
If (ha ha) the answer is Yes then my issue remains valid.
why dont you make a company and employ the unemployed?
So, by being a hard working person
Do you actually work any harder than say a nurse, fireman, teacher etc? What is your job? Can we decide on whether or not you actually re hard working? Because right now, you're [s]arguing[/s] discussing something on the internet, rather than doing whatever it is you do. Does your employer know this?
I'm sure I'll get some flaming for this
Well, if you will turn up to a gun fight armed only with a spoon... 😉
As I said, cherry pick the correct statistics and you can make it say whatever you want.
Good point. There's a good overview at http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4813 which sort of shows both sides.
(The OP may want to look at how people are changing their opinions based upon evidence.)
Do you actually work any harder than say a nurse, fireman, teacher etc? What is your job? Can we decide on whether or not you actually re hard working? Because right now, you're arguing discussing something on the internet, rather than doing whatever it is you do. Does your employer know this?
To be fair, I'm a teacher and am currently arguing on the internet 🙂
[i]If (ha ha) the answer is Yes then my issue remains valid.[/i]
Well, your issue (I think) was that your tax bill has increased, and it's being, as you see it, wasted on supporting people who refuse to work.
The amount of money spent on Jobseekers Allownace, as we've seen, is a small proportion of the DWP and the amount spent on 'undeserving' cases will be a tiny proportion of that. Also, the DWP budget is only a part of total government spend, and income from taxation is less than total government spend anyway (lets not go there...).
So, if we stopped paying to 'undeserving' Jobseekers, we'd be able to reduce your tax bill by a tiny proportion of a small proportion of a part of it's total.
I'd say that means you have a tiny proportion of a small proportion of a part of a valid issue.
Do you actually work any harder than say a nurse, fireman, teacher etc? What is your job? Can we decide on whether or not you actually re hard working? Because right now, you're arguing discussing something on the internet, rather than doing whatever it is you do. Does your employer know this?
It's my day off.....
And, READ, the original post. This is a discussion (not an argument) about taxation, not illiteracy.
I've no issue with supporting lower incomes people or families. And I clearly have no qualms with others working hard - why would I?
I get taxed. My taxes go up. I don't like how they are spent. Simple really.
I get taxed. My taxes go up. I don't [s]like[/s] [b]know[/b] how they are spent. Simple really.
FTFY
