Nothing wrong with the OP's thoughts....perfectly understandable!
We've often thought down here in Surrey, we should seek independence as the result would be a tax cut of about 99.9% due to not having to fund all those Northern wastrels!
# runs away#
That's OK, we in the north often wish we could have rid of Surrey 😀
Actually I don't know anyone I've pitched the idea to who disagreed with the notion of [if the Scots vote yes] drawing a new border from the Humber to the Mersey, and pledging allegiance to the Republic of New Scotlandshire. You lot like Dave so much you can keep him. 🙂
Not reading all of that but to the OP I agree in that whilst we may have a lot of unemployed who want to work, the fact is that you receive benefits in return for no work. Hence I tend to think a claim to benefits should be met in return by say 20hrs of 'work' in return where the individual is able. Managing this could be the role of other suitably qualified claimants and the work done could be of a kind useful to local and national society, maybe the jobs that we can no longer afford to pay for per se.
It's nice to hear Ed Balls has been reading this thread and acting upon it!
I'm trying to adjust to my new tax band. Today I have shopped in Sainsburys. It was a truly vile experience and one I do not intend to repeat. I need to find new ways of economising that won't jeapordise my Waitrose addiction - Hestons Earl Grey infused hot cross buns are just wonderful for afternoon tea.
But, this thread does seem to have lost its way a little. I understand the ethos if paying tax. I just don't agree with how it is spent.
The thought of segregating the odd county or two isn't so fat fetched, they use local taxation in Switzerland for instance.
If I ran for Prime Minister I reckon a lot of you would vote for me 🙂
Wasn't there a vote on regional assemblies a few years ago, nobody was interested. Lets see what the Scots do eh? Tbh, I think they will bottle it unless the Tories really f it up even more.
... and I think a lot of the money in Surrey is earned in London, independence from a dormitory county would be a benefit to the rest of us!
Imagine the commute, lining up at the frontier with your passport and your work visa... Sniffer dogs and metal detectors... wondering if you have enough sterling to buy lunch... You know how bothered we all about immigration, probably only allow 100 people a year to immigrate into the UK, not like you'd be automatic EU members.
the biggest chunk of the benefits bill goes to OAPs
and the coalition havent dared reduce that, nor do the press like to deomonise them, because they are more likely to vote (and buy papers) than younger folk
there is a way to fix it all, and save the nhs billions
[img] 
[/img]
Put D'artagnaon in a spaceship?
You sure?
you mean youve never seen logans run?!
[img] 
[/img]
Heard of it, a bit, does she wear that alot?
Not reading all of that
Pity, as you could have avoided wasting your time making a suggestion which has already been debunked.
Heard of it, a bit, does she wear that alot?
Yes.
internet is go...
[quote=kimbers said]the biggest chunk of the benefits bill goes to OAPs
and the coalition havent dared reduce that
Vince wants to though and also cut NHS/Education spending. Who'd a thunk it eh.
The OP is trolling brilliantly I think.
You earn more tax and its a tiered system whereby you pay more only on the amount over the limit. You take up is going up? What's not to like.
If the OP is at the top limit he wouldn't have been getting any allowances anyway.
BTW I also pay a lot of tax.
But, this thread does seem to have lost its way a little. I understand the ethos if paying tax. I just don't agree with how it is spent.
I call troll. No-one can carry on being as dense as this in the face of insurmountable evidence, can they?
We've often thought down here in Surrey, we should seek independence as the result would be a tax cut of about 99.9% due to not having to fund all those Northern wastrels!
That's fine, but you will have to pay punitive taxes and face a harsh border control policy if you want to come anywhere decent for mountain biking. 😉
Actually I don't know anyone I've pitched the idea to who disagreed with the notion of [if the Scots vote yes] drawing a new border from the Humber to the Mersey, and pledging allegiance to the Republic of New Scotlandshire. You lot like Dave so much you can keep him.
Can we start a serious political campaign to make this happen?
I love the way anyone says anything slightly contentious to the Guardianistas on here and it's 'Trolling'.
It's a perfectly reasonable argument that its a debilitating experience being taxed so much money when you have already contributed far more than most.
Next time I go up a tax bracket, I must remember to cry about hard it is.
Can we start a serious political campaign to make this happen?
I really think we should.
Next time you go up a tax bracket you run the risk of earning less than you do now!
Yes, I would
I love the way anyone says anything slightly contentious to the Guardianistas on here and it's 'Trolling'.It's a perfectly reasonable argument that its a debilitating experience being taxed so much money when you have already contributed far more than most.
No, it's that the OP seems to be incredibly ill-informed about what his taxes are spent on, despite repeated evidence. You can't just 'have an opinion' that something is true, without bothering to find out if it actually is, then when shown that your opinion is factually wrong just keep repeating it anyway.
Well you can, but it makes you look quite daft. Or like a troll.
Rockape63 - Member
Next time you go up a tax bracket you run the risk of earning less than you do now!
Don't talk rubbish.
[quote=stevewhyte said]Rockape63 - Member
Next time you go up a tax bracket you run the risk of earning less than you do now!
Don't talk rubbish.
If you factor in things like Child Benefit then it's possible for the household total income to drop when moving up a tax bracket.
Not really no.
It's not rubbish actually old Chap.... There is a point where you earn around 45k and earn less than someone earning less due to various factors such as child benefit etc
Someone with children?
There is a point where you earn around 45k and earn less than someone earning less due to various factors such as child benefit etc
Prove it!
Not you don't.
The loss of cb is on a sliding scale and your tax I crease is only on the amount above the lower limit threshold. And you get extra tax relieve at 40% on pensions.
So actually old chap, you simply don't.
Also CB has nothing to do with tax. And in all seriousness has no place in such a discussion.
aracer - MemberNot reading all of that
Pity, as you could have avoided wasting your time making a suggestion which has already been debunked.
Aaaahhh, just read a bit more and can't see the proven arguments that debunk the idea. Please point me to them 🙂 In reality the system wouldn't cost a huge amount more over the benefits/support already provided bearing in mind that any costs/wages are paid by the same Govt to whom taxes and nic is paid. Plus the overall reduction due to increased incentive to take a private sector job could be substantial, not to mention better health/self esteem, better example to offspring etc etc.
Can't be arsed to read it all but i guess there will be a stack of jealous people who resnt him making more than them. Our system is blantantly unfair. those who work should be encouraged not penalised. Same tax rates for all please. why should someone who takes little pay the most? thats Sodding wrong.
those who take should pay more. with no kids I should not pay as much as those with kids. etc.
Lazy jealous ****s think otherwise.
"Can't be arsed and don't understand when the grown ups speak. Can't understand math either....."
Fixed it for you mattsccm
deepreddave - Member
"aracer - Member
Pity, as you could have avoided wasting your time making a suggestion which has already been debunked."Aaaahhh, just read a bit more and can't see the proven arguments that debunk the idea. Please point me to them In reality the system wouldn't cost a huge amount more over the benefits/support already provided bearing in mind that any costs/wages are paid by the same Govt to whom taxes and nic is paid. Plus the overall reduction due to increased incentive to take a private sector job could be substantial, not to mention better health/self esteem, better example to offspring etc etc.
One job funded by the state takes one job out of the market. How does that reduce unemployment? Workfare provides free labour for massive companies, funded by the tax payer. If there wasn't workfare they would still need people to do these jobs but they would pay them [at least] minimum wage. This person would then have money to put into the economy. Not that difficult really.
But screw the economy lets make the scroungers work out.
Also I'd love to see your figures on how much it would cost, I'm sure they're pretty comprehensive.
Lifer - my guess is that my figures are as comprehensive as yours 😉 given the closing of the gap between benefits v low paid employment and reduced central spending due to the recession the cost v benefit of such a scheme is increasingly favourable. In addition there are many many areas of work that benefit claimants could become involved in that are neither the jobs you're referring to or even currently been done in these austere times. It's also a shane you can't see the positive benefits as I have encountered hundreds of people for whom leaving benefits simply isn't sufficiently financially beneficial compared to their quality of life on benefits. What do you suggest to incentivise/help these people beyond an unviable higher minimum wage?
deepreddave - Member
Lifer - my guess is that my figures are as comprehensive as yours
My figures for what? A claim that you made?
given the closing of the gap between benefits v low paid employment and reduced central spending due to the recession the cost v benefit of such a scheme is increasingly favourable
According to you, but I don't agree, for the reasons given above.
In addition there are many many areas of work that benefit claimants could become involved in that are neither the jobs you're referring to or even currently been done in these austere times
Such as?
It's also a shane you can't see the positive benefits as I have encountered hundreds of people for whom leaving benefits simply isn't sufficiently financially beneficial compared to their quality of life on benefits.
Find me one example in history where workfare has actually worked in reducing unemployment and/or the benefit bill. Can I ask where you've encountered these hundreds?
What do you suggest to incentivise/help these people beyond an unviable higher minimum wage?
Why is a higher minimum wage unviable? It would mean a simpler tax system as if employers paid a living wage the state doesn't need to subsidise it with housing benefit, income support, tax credits etc. Plus I don't need a solution as I don't think a problem exists (except the erosion of a benefits system we should be proud of).
Workfare provides free labour for massive companies, funded by the tax payer. If there wasn't workfare they would still need people to do these jobs
So, you would presumably have no ethical objection to 'workfare' if the jobs were done entirely for the benefit of the wider community - such as basic cleaning in hospitals, litter picking in public parks, conservation work (the people currently doing this can supervise/oversee so its zero sum gain on the jobs/expenses side of things, but they now have a much greater workforce)
rattrap - Member
Workfare provides free labour for massive companies, funded by the tax payer. If there wasn't workfare they would still need people to do these jobs
So, you would presumably have no ethical objection to 'workfare' if the jobs were done entirely for the benefit of the wider community - such as basic cleaning in hospitals, litter picking in public parks, conservation work (the people currently doing this can supervise/oversee so its zero sum gain on the jobs/expenses side of things, but they now have a much greater workforce)
You presume wrong.
It's not the ethics I have a problem with FFS. It's the maths.
We have 5 cleaners in a hospital. They're replaced by 5 workfare 'volunteers'. Do you think the cleaning company will keep on the 5 original cleaners to provide 1 on 1 supervision? Or will the person who supervised the 5 original cleaners now be supervising 5 workfare claimants while 5 ex-cleaners look for work and the cleaning company's profits increase by 5 people's salaries?
Only about 40% of hospitals use contract cleaners, so thats your first 'jumped to conclusion' shot down.
So, back to the point - if that was the case (no loss of existing, but they were used to train and oversee, so you end up with more) would you have a problem with people working for their benefits or not?
rattrap - Member
Only about 40% of hospitals use contract cleaners, so thats your first 'jumped to conclusion' shot down.
Ouch, what a major rebuttal. Except it doesn't change the scenario. Why would an NHS Trust (right this time?) use money from their budget to keep on 5 cleaners as supervisors to workfare claimants when they will already have a supervisor for the 5 cleaners, who they can now 'get rid of'?
So, back to the point - if that was the case (no loss of existing, but they were used to train and oversee, so you end up with more) would you have a problem with people working for their benefits or not?
Most people receiving benefits do work, but require benefits because minimum wage is not a living wage.
Why would an NHS Trust (right this time?) use money from their budget to keep on 5 cleaners as supervisors to workfare claimants when they will already have a supervisor for the 5 cleaners?
Because they do what the people who provide their budget tell them to, so if the government made that the rule, would you support it, or not?
If there's a job give them a job.
Take 15 minutes to listen to this:
[url= http://audioboo.fm/boos/1223720-iain-duncan-smith-s-explosive-row-with-james-o-brien ]IDS can't defend workfare[/url]
Pretty difficult to come away from that with the impression that workfare is nothing but posturing.
It has never worked in reducing unemployment and has always cost more to administer than JSA/equivalents, if it was such a great policy why have other countries tried it and abandoned it?
well they say other reasons for why it is unfair but I suspect you wont believe themICan't be arsed to read it all but i guess there will be a stack of jealous people who resnt him making more than them.
iirc the op gets a bit mor e money that a benefot claimant so job doneOur system is blantantly unfair. those who work should be encouraged not penalised.
Ok same wages for all pleaseSame tax rates for all please.
Its because they have the most to give and they understand their moral responsibility to the leat well of in societywhy should someone who takes little pay the most? thats Sodding wrong.
those who take should pay more.
How exactly will prisoners raise the money to pay for thei "care" this could get tricky - perhaps we could put them inprison for not paying then fine them again?? This is how well thought out your ideas are
with no kids I should not pay as much as those with kids.
Seems strange that such a warm . thoughtful and engaing person as you has not met someone willing to bear their children.
In addition there are many many areas of work that benefit claimants could become involved in that are neither the jobs you're referring to or even currently been done in these austere times.
I would support voluntary work to make a better society - however it is not that surprising that thos eleft on the margins of cosiety have little interest in working to make it a better place
It's also a shane you can't see the positive benefits as I have encountered hundreds of people for whom leaving benefits simply isn't sufficiently financially beneficial compared to their quality of life on benefits.
Ar eyou saying wages are so low that the bare minimum the state decress you need to be on the poverty line is about what you will get on th eminimum wage - THAT IS SHOCKING
What do you suggest to incentivise/help these people beyond an unviable higher minimum wage?
I remeber when the employers told us the minimum wage was unaffordable now its a higher one that is unaffordable
Can you use Mc Donalds and their UK based profits to explain why they cannot pay above the minimum wage? Could you explain why we should subsidise their employment [ via working tax credits]
re cleaning a hospital I would rather leave it in the hands of a professional who has a job and may get sacked if they do it badly than make an anthropology graduate, a recently redundant builder, the ex army major person with no interest in cleaning clean hospitals.
Its not about helping them or about making a better society it is about tax payers feeling like they get thier moneys worth out of them.
Perhaps we could make them wear special uniforms with a badge on so we can tell who they are in every day life?
if there's a job give them a job.
[i] "Dear Chief Secretary. I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards - and good luck! Liam."[/i]
