Forum menu
It's the benefit brigade that bug me. Why should they enjoy a nice house, with nice furniture and nice belongings when they've not worked for them?
your claims that you are 'friends' with people on benefits is clearly bollo... maybe these friends of yours are criminals on benefits perhaps.. Or maybe these 'friends are just people you have encountered briefly or read about..?
honest people existing on benefits have little indeed to be glad about.. at least not by your standards..
i've not read everything on here, because it would annoy me too much, but i haven't seen many mention that one of the main targets for cuts are tax credits. these are predominantly paid to low paid workers, to supplement their income (and as a subsidy to employers to enable them to pay less than lving wages)
these are not dole scroungers, they are people working but who cannot get by on their wage alone. these people are also facing cuts in housing benefit (many will get partial help towards their rent) and will struggle.
kinda puts a lie to the tory line that it's cracking down on layabouts.
i guess it's easier to just label the welfare cuts as hitting a target that everyone hates, rather than addressing the truth
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
Something to think about while you're choosing a slightly cheaper bottle of wine.
This'll probably just shine a light on my own ****lessness rather than be constructive ('tis what the internet's for though eh?), but the bit that stood out most to me was:
DrRS**** - MemberI work stupid hours doing something stressful.
Why do it? There must surely be a point when earning becomes an obsession, wouldn't it make more sense to earn x-amount less for a life y-amount more enjoyable? (i hear people can enjoy stress, and i'm as much of an overtime whore as the next man, but the two together - really?)
as sweeping generalisations are fun, would earning, say, 60 grand per year rather than 75 make that much difference to one's ablility to buy nice things/live nice places/have nice holidays etc? This is presuming one wasn't inextricably tied to a lifestyle that necessitated 75k (addiction to helicopters or somesuch). A three bed detached in a very select area compared to a three bed semi in a nice area?
Seems like an excessive trade off of quality of life to my eye, and that probably explains how i'm wormed my way from middle to working class (not in values my w/class brothers and sisters, just the registrar general's classification)
Just taking a punt here but I reckon our man s**** is in fact MrNutt.
It would hardy be out of character now would it?
Could be, could be. Woon't put it past Nutt; he is a racist at heart actually.
I'm above using an alter dear hearts, my money's on it being a surfer, and i claim my five pounds.
ha ha, very funny DR****, nobody is that much of a self-centred ****. very good!
I work stupid hours doing something stressful.
Ah so [i]that's[/i] why you're bitter. Here's an idea - get a smaller house/mortgage - work less, doing something less stressful - have a better life?
my money's on it being a surfer
On balance I think not. He's been able to keep posting this long without a mention of "blue chip clients", his boat, "stealth bomber" or his fun nights partying on the beach with his friends while swapping over batteries on his phone.
Just got to end of this thread and wanted to know how if I was on £100k per annum I could earn £12.5 net a month? Could somebody point me in the direction of the accountant who performed this miracle?
I pay road tax
[url= http://ipayroadtax.com/ ]no you don't[/url]
come on chaps - this is still a cycling forum isn't it - how did you miss this one?
Can you give me examples of people who mad emoney without exploiting the poor - paying them less in wages than they earn for their labour? You do understand how capitalism works dont you?
I understand, but I'm not convinced you do with comments like that. Though it would help if you explained in a bit more detail what you mean by that, as I can see several interpretations:
- that the boss of the company earning more than any of his workers is exploitation
- that the company making more in profit than it pays in wages is exploitation
- that the company paying less in wages than it earns in income is exploitation
Please elucidate so I can shoot down the right one.
The point is Britain is one of the most unequal of all western industrial societies. The gap between the rich and poor is huge and is getting bigger. The reason this happens is because the people who are relatively rich whinge the most. As evidenced by this thread. They are able to nurse a genuine sense of greivance even while they stand to benefit the most from society being set up the way it is. Every single neutral commentary on these latest spending cuts have said that they impact the poor more than the rich: Doesn't seem to get through to the affluent middle classes does it?
Can't stomach the whole thread, but two points:
1) not all poor people on benefits are workshy scum living a comfy life. In fact most are not.
2) you don't really understand the point of tax. You don't pay into it to get something back, you pay into it to help run the country and that includes helping those in need.
If you don't like helping those in need then you're not a nice person.
The gap between the rich and poor is huge and is getting bigger
People keep banging on about this, but:
Take a very equal society, where the gap between rich and poor is low. Then move in a load of super-rich folk from overseas, suddenly the gap is huge. Calamity? Disaster? Regressive move?
No.
You're entirely right, RS****. I punched the numbers into an online calculator and then promptly read the wrong line.
£5,400 after tax.
According to this: [url] http://listentotaxman.com/index.php [/url]
Still plenty for most.
Meanwhile in socialist worker utopia, the gap between rich and poor is narrowed by a top rate of tax of 100% driving the rich overseas. Who cares that there's less money in the total economy so the poor have 10% less money, so long as the rich have 50% less?
Aracer - unfortunatly thats not how it works . If it did work like that germany italy norway etc would not be richer than us as they tax higher and have lower inequlities
According to this: http://listentotaxman.com/index.php
Thanks for that link, omitn. Neatly provides the information to prove you wrong on:
"For high earners they've recently scrapped the tax free allowance. And, not only that, but that part of your salary is now taxed at 40%!
DrRS****"No quite right, and I'd worry if that's the advice your accountant is giving you. Any lost personal allowance is taxed at 20%.
If you check the difference between 100k income (the point at which you still have full personal allowance) and 113k (at which point you no longer have any), you'll find that you pay the same amount of tax at 20% in both cases - hence all the lost personal allowance is taxed at 40%. I'll certainly not be hiring [b]you[/b] as my accountant.
Meanwhile a couple of other points are clear:
gross £100k, net £65310.40
gross £113k, net £70390.40, net change £2590
- that's a marginal rate of tax/NI of 61% on that 13k
- somebody earning £113k is losing 2.3% of their gross income, 3.5% of their net income
I'm far from being an apologist for high earners (I'm unlikely to even pay 40% tax in my lifetime), but we really should get our facts straight.
Please elucidate so I can shoot down the right one
It is a pointless debate it is the essence of capitalism you either think it is ok - return in investment, risk ,entreprenuership, whatever or you think it is not. Either way it is what actually happens you employ people to make /do something for x cost you sell it for y you pocket Y- X - unless you work in banking in which case we pay the losses and you keep your bonus 🙄
What is your view of capitalsim companies/individuals do it to benefit society and provide employment or to make money? Surely they can only make money by charging more than it costs ?
On a small scale [ small businesses] it is probbaly not that bad as rpofit is probably marginal /reasonable/acceptabel whatever but when you see billion pound annual profits for companies it is ,IMHO,excessive and that sort of wealth should be more fairly shared amongst the world's citizens- people starve to death , cannot educate their children , drink clean water yet we have people with more money than they can ever spend. Doubtlessly some billionaiires have worked damn hard for their money - some undoubtedly have massive talent , some are ruthless , some are corrupt etc. i find it hard to believe any of them have worked of thousands of times harder than their employees.
You are either ok with this or not each to their own. I would prefer a fairer world however unrealistic you or I may think this is.
Unfortunately, many people are motivated by greed and personal wealth rather than soocial responsibility
If I was a highly qualified medical doctor, I'd feel pretty lucky I could get paid hansomely by the state.
GP's have it much easier since Labour gave them a massive pay rise and relieved them of the obligation to open all hours.
Any one who goes into medicine in the UK knows they will be highly likely to work stupid hours - people don't just get sick during the normal working week!
Of course, if you feel that you are being unfairly over taxed in your role as well paid doctor, there's always the option to take your expertise and go and work elsewhere in the world.
As for the extreme left wingers on here - don't waste your breath on them as they have no idea what is fair, or what is really going on.
If it did work like that germany italy norway etc would not be richer than us as they tax higher and have lower inequlities
What's their top rate of tax? I'm guessing it's a bit less than the 100% Che was proposing.
In any case, are you suggesting that the wealth of a country is solely dependent on the taxation system and the rich/poor divide? Or is it possible that those countries you mention might still be richer than us even if they did have more inequality and lower taxation? Come to that, how do you know those countries wouldn't be richer still if they had our taxation system?
Meanwhile in socialist worker utopia
It's fairly unusual for you aracer to use the sort of crass rhetoric which is more commonly associated with the likes of ratty.
You sound as if you might be a litle rattled mate - are you ?
Is it a lonely and frustrating business trying to defend the indefensible ?
Or is it that you were itching for a fight but no one seemed very keen so you thought you'd up the antes ?
Still, you finally got a response so I guess it worked.
I'll certainly not be hiring you as my accountant.
Just as well I'm a lawyer..!
It is a pointless debate
Do I hear you sidestepping my question?
when you see billion pound annual profits for companies it is ,IMHO,excessive
Would billion Zimbabwe Dollar profits be excessive? The same numerically, so what's the difference? Why are billion pound profits for a company with a million shareholders any more excessive than million pound profits for one with a thousand shareholders? If you're one of those million shareholders, why should your pension money be spent on overseas aid just because you've invested in a big company? Why is a company making a billion pounds profit yet paying ten billion pounds in wages exploiting its workers? Such figures are totally meaningless without context.
You sound as if you might be a litle rattled mate - are you ?
No - just calling a spade a spade, and I missed my opportunity to explain on the other thread how your 100% taxation policy was ideological rather than practical.
Or are you denying:
- you read Socialist Worker
- 100% upper rate of tax is the sort of Policy the SWP would have
- such a rate of tax wouldn't actually benefit the country
Goodness me, you are grumpy tonight 😐
What's up mate ?
You can tell me.........no one's listening.
Do I hear you sidestepping my question?
Not sure are you one of those people who needs to read out loud 😉
it was along post to sidestep you not responding may have been more effective.
Such figures are totally meaningless without context.
I gave you the context, is that you sidestepping?
here it is again
when you see billion pound annual profits for companies [ [b]probably better to have said individuals personal wealth of billions[/b]]it is ,IMHO,excessive and that sort of wealth should be more fairly shared amongst the world's citizens- people starve to death , cannot educate their children , drink clean water yet we have people with more money than they can ever spend
tell me this is fair and you are ok with it then?
If you're one of those million shareholders, why should your pension money be spent on overseas aid just because you've invested in a big company?
yes good point let em starve. Someone has enough money to invest they cant eat...which is the greater need ? Help me out it is a tricky one.As I said you are either Ok with this or you want wealth /momey more fairly distributed.
I gave you the context
Not until now you didn't, but thanks. FWIW I'm no more a fan of people earning huge amounts than you are - the question is what are you going to do about it? Realistically there is no way to grab large amounts of it from them as there will always be loopholes for them to jump through, and if by some means you did manage to close those they'd just avoid our tax system altogether by leaving and taking their toys with them - remember these are the people largely driven by greed and personal wealth.
See my mention of pensions there? It's not wealthy people I'm talking about here, but ordinary ones, including plenty below average wage. Are you suggesting totally dismantling capitalism (remind me how well other systems work?) by redistributing all profits made by companies to more needy parts of the world?Someone has enough money to invest they cant eat...which is the greater need ?
I do wonder what you're doing on here when you clearly don't need a computer or an internet account (or a mountain bike), and could instead send everything you earn apart from what you need for basics to people poorer than you. Or don't you practice what you preach? Are you in fact more motivated by wealth and personal possessions than social responsibility?
Someone has enough money to invest they cant eat...which is the greater need ? Help me out it is a tricky one.As I said you are either Ok with this or you want wealth /momey more fairly distributed.
so who decides the redistribution of wealth? you're idea of fair, certainly will not be the same as someone from a different religion/geographical location/tribe.
you see, fairness would depend on humans being completely altruistic and we're not genetically designed that way otherwise we'd have died out as species. The strong survive and protect their tribe at the cost of the weak. It's the same all over the animal kingdom. Just because we wear a suit doesn't suddenly remove us from that fact.
god dam tree hugging lefties
Not until now you didn't,
Its just a repost from before
they'd just avoid our tax system altogether by leaving and taking their toys with them - remember these are the people largely driven by greed and personal wealth.
Some would for sure and it would need to be global - never said it was realistic just fairer. It did not fully occur when we had 95% TAX rates who knows how many but fewer than threaten too IMHO.
See my mention of pensions there? It's not wealthy people I'm talking about here, but ordinary ones,
If you can put away for a pension to not work in old age you are rich - check out the global average wage - someone had a linky for how wealthy you are look how low you need to go to get to be at 50%. See we all think we are poor even those on 50 k
and could instead send everything you earn apart from what you need for basics to people poorer than you. Or don't you practice what you preach? Are you in fact more motivated by wealth and personal possessions than social responsibility?
A usual criticism of anyone who says what i say and not without some merit. I do give to charity via DD but of course I could do more- who in the west could say differently?. I doubt very much world poverty and suffering will end by my actions alone, but I do my bit FWIW. Clearly we need to all act together to achieve this but we lack the will of the people for some of the reasons outlined by tazzy. It is just that some of us would like our behaviour to be further removed from apes than it currently is and share abit more - surely not a bad principle?
Is that picture a scene from 'The Human Centipede?'
I'll have to get down to Blockbusters tomorrow, I like political thrillers.
Hmmmm. Some interesting (read infuriating) views here.
The whole tax increase rich vs poor arguement kinda works on paper, but it's just numbers and numbers can be manipulated to whatever end in which they become most useful. e.g. £20,000 household income with £400 /month rent will be hit a ridiculous amount compared to £30,000 household income with £400 /month rent. But say those with £30,000 , £50,000 , £70,000 household income don't want to live in a £400 /month house? They can afford £1,000+ /month rent or mortgage. They can afford £100+ /month for a nice car, etc. And the household bills increase due to there being more home to heat, car insurance increases cos it's a nicer car, and very quickly you end up with a higher income family having not much more free cash than a single income/social income family.
But that's the fault of the higher income family? That have strived for better? The arguement seems to be "you earn more than me, so why shouldn't you pay more to keep my family off the breadline?"
Well I don't buy that. We *do* pay more!
I have nothing but respect for those out there struggling with single or no income. The stress is unreal. I know: I'm currently one of them. But I certainly don't blame the current government and their spending review for it. I don't blame anyone*. It's all just shit that happens that us small people have no control over and just have to deal with. I think the spending review is about as sensible as things could be right now, and I'm thankful Labour and their 'scorched earth' policy are out of the way. People may well lose their jobs, which is an individual tragedy in each case, but what would we rather have? Russia 1992? The Weimar Republic 1921-1923? Yes I know that's exaggeration and hot air, but it seems to work for the tabloids.
*well, maybe I blame Labour a little bit. Maybe I'd have blamed whoever was in control at the time? I can't say.
Onzadog
I haven't read any of the replies yet, but that was a good answer.
On "Have I got News For You" last week, one of the panellists said, about Philip Green, who has nominated his Monaco-living wife as head of his company so that he doesn't have to pay tax because he thinks £285 million is too much to pay, this:
"Of course you have to pay £285 million - you earned £1.2 BILLION, you fat greasy pig".
A criticsim I find hard to fault.
I am often moved, when Green is on the News, to note that he seems most self-satisfied when photographed with his coke-whore model girlfriend on his arm...
But perhaps that IS a little unfair. What does the team think?
And the household bills increase due to there being more home to heat, car insurance increases cos it's a nicer car, and very quickly you end up with a higher income family having not much more free cash than a single income/social income family
You need to look at the standard of living though and the ability to tighten your belt - even you admit they have nicer things - does this not contribute to your wealth? By this argument a multi millionaiire with a stately home , 3 cars and a yacht may be poor because they spend all their 2000K monthly salary on things. It is much simpler to say that someone on 50k has more money than someone on 30 k even if you think that
numbers can be manipulated to whatever end in which they become most useful.
And that Junkyard is where our arguments differ.
You think it's fair to ask the well off (not the billionaires) to tighten their belts so that others don't have to.
I think I contribute a fair amount already. I work hard and don't really want to have to sell my Mondeo to buy a "less" glamorous car.....
Being as simplistic as saying someone on 50k has more than someone on 30k is going a bit too far. People live within their means - but what the government are suggesting will make it a larger adjustment for those on better incomes.
OK, so they might not find themselves on the breadline, but that was never the point of the posts. It's the expectation from the lower incomes that the higher earners will bail them out. And on top of that it's the venom and bile that seems directed at those on better incomes.
Anyway - it's kept me entertained.
but what the government are suggesting will make it a larger adjustment for those on better incomes.
Not according to the IFS.
Being as simplistic as saying someone on 50k has more than someone on 30k is going a bit too far.
It's just a simple fact.
It's the expectation from the lower incomes that the higher earners will bail them out.
It's the other way round mate.
It was ordinary working class people who bailed the bankers out. It is them who contribute the largest amount by far to the government.
And the Tory LibDem government is determined to keep it that way........£7 billion in benefit cuts, and £7 billion in bonuses for bankers.
The Tories and LibDems like to "balance" the books.
DrRS**** - MemberAnd that Junkyard is where our arguments differ.
You think it's fair to ask the well off (not the billionaires) to tighten their belts so that others don't have to.
This is not what is happening. Teh poorest will be losing a bigger % of their income according to the ifs
It was ordinary working class people who bailed the bankers out. It is them who contribute the largest amount by far to the government.
Well that's clearly wrong. The tax system needs changing so that the richest 1% pay more than the other 99%. Do you think a 200% top rate of tax would do it?
And the Tory LibDem government is determined to keep it that way........£7 billion in benefit cuts, and £7 billion in bonuses for bankers.
The government are giving bonuses to bankers? That's scandalous.
Being as simplistic as saying someone on 50k has more than someone on 30k is going a bit too far
It really is that simple 50k really is more than 30k iirc it is 20 k more - just wait I will go and check with my 4 year old
yep he agrees it is 20 k more
You think it's fair to ask the well off (not the billionaires) to tighten their belts so that others don't have to
I would ask the billionaiires too. I would not expect the poorest people to tighten their belts more than the better off.
. It's the expectation from the [s]lower incomes[/s]bankers that the [s]higher[/s]lower earners will bail them out.
That is what is happening* read the IFS report and try and develop a conscience, some maths skills and a bit of perspective.
* we are all being expected to bale out the bankers and we are putting a disproportionate burden on "normal " people and the poorest in our society. £2.7 billion from child benefits £2.5 billion bank tax. You seem to think the poor should be paying for tte [very] rich. If we are all in this together surely the better off, who have the broadest financial shouldres, should carry the largest burden - yes the already do I know but as above they can afford it unless 50 k realy is not more than 30k
we are all being expected to bale out the bankers
Are we? I must have missed that bit - I thought the banks were making profit, some of which was going into the treasury because we own them, and that we were actually bailing out the last government's structural overspending. How wrong could I be.
we are putting a disproportionate burden on "normal " people and the poorest in our society. £2.7 billion from child benefits
Too right - how will all those poor people paying higher rate income tax cope without their child benefit?
The government are giving bonuses to bankers? That's scandalous.
My my, you are in a silly mood this weekend aracer.
The government have let the bankers off the hook - so they can pay themselves nice bonuses. So yes, the government is responsible for the fact that bankers are going to have a good recession.
Take the £7billion off the bankers and use it to plug the benefit bill. They are after all the cause of the global mess and behind the burden of raising unemployment.