Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[albitz]

"60% of those recieving benifit do work".And that is the fact that gives away the agenda.On the one hand people in work are taxed overall approx 50% of their income.So the state takes around half of the money they have earned and then possibly give some of it back with the other hand if they meet certain criteria set by the state. We live in a thinly disguised socialist society,and we need a leader of the Thatcher mould who has the balls to dismantle it.
If those people in work who recieve benefits werent vastly overtaxed in the first place they wouldnt need to be in receipt of benefits from the state.But then they wouldnt feel obliged to vote for the party which hands out the benefits and be brainwashed into thinking they cant survive without the support of the state.

[Terbs]

Thing is Dave.....you are correct in your statement

But....and a big but....is one part of it that says 'fought for what this country is today'

What is this country today, mate...in my opinion its a ****hole.....and I hate to think that my grandfather who was shot (but survived) and my father and mother fought to make this country a ****hole

Does that make sense

[cleggy]

Thing is Dave.....you are correct in your statement

But....and a big but....is one part of it that says 'fought for what this country is today'

What is this country today, mate...in my opinion its a ****hole.....and I hate to think that my grandfather who was shot (but survived) and my father and mother fought to make this country a ****hole

Does that make sense

I know exactly what you mean, our grand parents and parents must be turning in their graves or those still with us wondering what was the point.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

"60% of those recieving benifit do work".And that is the fact that gives away the agenda.On the one hand people in work are taxed overall approx 50% of their income.So the state takes around half of the money they have earned and then possibly give some of it back with the other hand if they meet certain criteria set by the state. We live in a thinly disguised socialist society,and we need a leader of the Thatcher mould who has the balls to dismantle it.
If those people in work who recieve benefits werent vastly overtaxed in the first place they wouldnt need to be in receipt of benefits from the state.But then they wouldnt feel obliged to vote for the party which hands out the benefits and be brainwashed into thinking they cant survive without the support of the state.

Sorry Albitz, but how do you work that one out. If you mean that a worker is taxed at the standard rate of 20% up to £34,370 (or at 40% if earning between £34,371 to £150,000) then decides to purchase items that attract a further 30% of tax for standard rate earners then that is up to the individual if they want to buy the "luxuries".  But remembering food is zero rated for VAT, it is an exaggeration to talk of "50% tax" on what you earn.  The state has to raise income to support all the public services, so the more you spend, the more you pay.  Is  that not fair?  I thought so when I was on a high rate of tax, which I did not begrudge. If you pay high taxes it means you are doing nicely thank you.

The poor in our society do not have that luxury, with many on a low income.  But if anyone is aggrieved by the help they get from the state, offer your job to them and pay less tax, and instead take their job in replacement.  Then see how you survive on a low income.  But of course no one would do that, but everyone complains about their lot. 

The world is not fair, never will be without a dramatic change of human nature, so live with it.  Pay your taxes and thank your lucky stars you are in work, well, and able to buy a few luxuries that you will pay tax on. Without that we have no society.

[Rog]

. . . . . ,and we need a leader of the Thatcher mould who has the balls to dismantle it.

Ooooooooooooooooo he said the " T " word, naughty boy.

Love her or hate her she did what she thought was right without too much consideration for popular opinion, and also what would now be called Political Correcteness. The result . . . she won elections. Ok she lost it a bit later on, but . . .

Today's major party leaders are all too afraid to really nail their flag to the mast one way or the other.

[Tonka.]

The one on the left is more trustworthy....

[Lizzie_Zoom]

The one on the left is more trustworthy....

 

Good find!!

[Tonka.]

I thank you..

[albitz]

"60% of those recieving benifit do work".And that is the fact that gives away the agenda.On the one hand people in work are taxed overall approx 50% of their income.So the state takes around half of the money they have earned and then possibly give some of it back with the other hand if they meet certain criteria set by the state. We live in a thinly disguised socialist society,and we need a leader of the Thatcher mould who has the balls to dismantle it.
If those people in work who recieve benefits werent vastly overtaxed in the first place they wouldnt need to be in receipt of benefits from the state.But then they wouldnt feel obliged to vote for the party which hands out the benefits and be brainwashed into thinking they cant survive without the support of the state.

Sorry Albitz, but how do you work that one out. If you mean that a worker is taxed at the standard rate of 20% up to £34,370 (or at 40% if earning between £34,371 to £150,000) then decides to purchase items that attract a further 30% of tax for standard rate earners then that is up to the individual if they want to buy the "luxuries".  But remembering food is zero rated for VAT, it is an exaggeration to talk of "50% tax" on what you earn.  The state has to raise income to support all the public services, so the more you spend, the more you pay.  Is  that not fair?  I thought so when I was on a high rate of tax, which I did not begrudge. If you pay high taxes it means you are doing nicely thank you.

The poor in our society do not have that luxury, with many on a low income.  But if anyone is aggrieved by the help they get from the state, offer your job to them and pay less tax, and instead take their job in replacement.  Then see how you survive on a low income.  But of course no one would do that, but everyone complains about their lot. 

The world is not fair, never will be without a dramatic change of human nature, so live with it.  Pay your taxes and thank your lucky stars you are in work, well, and able to buy a few luxuries that you will pay tax on. Without that we have no society.

The average person on the average wage will pay approx. 50% of their earnings in one form of taxation or another.Thats a fact.Some of these taxes could be avoided by changing spending patterns,but in the main they cant.The state does not have to raise all this revenue to fund all the the services it funds.They choose to do so,when they could choose to reduce or abolish them. And imo many of them should be reduced or abolished.
Most of the working people who recieve benefits happen to earn much more than I do.I earn a wage way below the national average and not much above minimum wage.Those people have children of school age and I dont,so they recieve benefits which Im not entitled to.Many of the "working poor" you speak of will almost certainly earn more than I do.
My beliefs and principles dont change according to my circumstances,but perhaps Im just a mug in todays society ?
My household would almost certainly be entitled to benefits due to health problems,particularily if we were to lay it on a bit thick and bend the truth just a little bit,but we wouldnt consider doing so.It would be hypocritical as we believe much of the so called welfare state should be dismantled.
I have also come close to coming round to TB,s way of thinking regarding the NHS after recent exeriences.Particularily those which have happened in the last 24  hours.
I wont go into detail for fear of getting banned/arrested/starting an OOF riot,but the idea of shutting it down completely seems to be a very attractive one at this moment in time.
At least do that,then re employ the useful caring staff on new contracts and ban al the others from any role above picking up litter from the car parks.No union recognition,and deportation for any agitators who try to overturn that.
Its as well I was at work last night and couldnt be at the hospital concerned as I am certain I would be in a cell tonight and at least one nurse (the male one) would be in ICU.

[cem_devecioglu]

"60% of those recieving benifit do work".And that is the fact that gives away the agenda.On the one hand people in work are taxed overall approx 50% of their income.So the state takes around half of the money they have earned and then possibly give some of it back with the other hand if they meet certain criteria set by the state. We live in a thinly disguised socialist society,and we need a leader of the Thatcher mould who has the balls to dismantle it.
If those people in work who recieve benefits werent vastly overtaxed in the first place they wouldnt need to be in receipt of benefits from the state.But then they wouldnt feel obliged to vote for the party which hands out the benefits and be brainwashed into thinking they cant survive without the support of the state.

Sorry Albitz, but how do you work that one out. If you mean that a worker is taxed at the standard rate of 20% up to £34,370 (or at 40% if earning between £34,371 to £150,000) then decides to purchase items that attract a further 30% of tax for standard rate earners then that is up to the individual if they want to buy the "luxuries".  But remembering food is zero rated for VAT, it is an exaggeration to talk of "50% tax" on what you earn.  The state has to raise income to support all the public services, so the more you spend, the more you pay.  Is  that not fair?  I thought so when I was on a high rate of tax, which I did not begrudge. If you pay high taxes it means you are doing nicely thank you.

The poor in our society do not have that luxury, with many on a low income.  But if anyone is aggrieved by the help they get from the state, offer your job to them and pay less tax, and instead take their job in replacement.  Then see how you survive on a low income.  But of course no one would do that, but everyone complains about their lot. 

The world is not fair, never will be without a dramatic change of human nature, so live with it.  Pay your taxes and thank your lucky stars you are in work, well, and able to buy a few luxuries that you will pay tax on. Without that we have no society.

The average person on the average wage will pay approx. 50% of their earnings in one form of taxation or another.Thats a fact.Some of these taxes could be avoided by changing spending patterns,but in the main they cant.The state does not have to raise all this revenue to fund all the the services it funds.They choose to do so,when they could choose to reduce or abolish them. And imo many of them should be reduced or abolished.
Most of the working people who recieve benefits happen to earn much more than I do.I earn a wage way below the national average and not much above minimum wage.Those people have children of school age and I dont,so they recieve benefits which Im not entitled to.Many of the "working poor" you speak of will almost certainly earn more than I do.
My beliefs and principles dont change according to my circumstances,but perhaps Im just a mug in todays society ?
My household would almost certainly be entitled to benefits due to health problems,particularily if we were to lay it on a bit thick and bend the truth just a little bit,but we wouldnt consider doing so.It would be hypocritical as we believe much of the so called welfare state should be dismantled.
I have also come close to coming round to TB,s way of thinking regarding the NHS after recent exeriences.Particularily those which have happened in the last 24  hours.
I wont go into detail for fear of getting banned/arrested/starting an OOF riot,but the idea of shutting it down completely seems to be a very attractive one at this moment in time.
At least do that,then re employ the useful caring staff on new contracts and ban al the others from any role above picking up litter from the car parks.No union recognition,and deportation for any agitators who try to overturn that.
Its as well I was at work last night and couldnt be at the hospital concerned as I am certain I would be in a cell tonight and at least one nurse (the male one) would be in ICU.

sorry to hear  that Albert

[Rods2]

Sorry to hear about your problems Albs.

You are correct on the 50%, as employer NI should be included as it is your labour that generates the company the money to pay this. About 18 months ago I did a calculation for Mr/Ms Average Single who were paid an average wage, did annual average mileage in an average car, had average house rental / mortgage cost, who had average council tax etc etc and their tax was about 48.5%. Now if they were a smoker, heavy drinker or used an above average amount of fuel this took them over the 50%. If you are in the 40% tax band you pay well over 50%. The exception to this is families who receive benefits and like you say in many cases they are taxed and then have to claim them back. Our benefits system is a pain for employees on varying commission and the self employed as their circumstances are constantly changing, so they have to spend hours reporting their changing circumstances.

The massively rising cost of the benefits system have been due to McRuin changing the definition of poverty to "relative poverty" as this is a percentage of the average wage, it will always exist, as Labour clients so this will always be an expensive burden. In the UK he changed the system so much that families regardless of income are guaranteed a comfortable living whether they work for it or not. Mass migration has also been a big social cost particularly on the NHS and with pensions. With rising taxation for the rich many have gone elsewhere, the latest being the founder of Money Supermarket to the Channel Islands. The bulk is paid by the well paid middle classes and they are now the biggest group emigrating from the UK.

As somebody said recently we are now at the more puppies than teats stage. As the ConLibLab will not tackle the deficit in any sensible way by rebalancing the economy, this country will default for the first time since 1600 by 2018 at the latest and it maybe as early as 2015.

Democracy will probably disappear at this point. The Trokia will sort the mess out but the price will be becoming a province of the EU, with their 28 member Politburo controlling all our laws and budgets with the Euro as our currency.

I personally can't see a way back, which is why I'm leaving the UK.

[aaronjb]

Two articles bits of twaddle I read this morning that made me think of this thread:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246192/We-risk-like-Norway-quit-EU-says-Cameron--PM-warns-Britain-unable-influence-laws.html

Snippet: "We risk being like Norway if we quit EU, says Cameron". So, er, one of the richest countries per capita in the world with fantastic universal healthcare, a great education system and (occasional nutters aside) low crime rates and safety? Sign me up! Although you'll all have to stop drinking as alcohol is insanely expensive in Norway, on the up side cars attract 100% tax so the value of our clapped out old Omegas will go up significantly.


And this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246104/Unemployed-single-mother-benefits-spends-2-000-Christmas-20-presents-children.html

Snippet: Unemployed single mother on benefits spends £2k on Christmas presents and claims she is better off on benefits and would not get a job unless she could continue her luxury lifestyle, which includes designer outfits, holidays abroad, clubbing, lunches out and expensive gifts for her daughters Zelekah, two, and Zakirah, one.



Hope you've all got your blood pressure pills to hand

[Kevin Wood]

Yeah, but the beer's really expensive in Norway. I think I'd have to up my home brew production significantly.

[albitz]

Public execution for suppliers. Enforced treatmant programmes for users. Long sentences for users who still use after finishing treatment. Seemples.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Two articles bits of twaddle I read this morning that made me think of this thread:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246192/We-risk-like-Norway-quit-EU-says-Cameron--PM-warns-Britain-unable-influence-laws.html

Snippet: "We risk being like Norway if we quit EU, says Cameron". So, er, one of the richest countries per capita in the world with fantastic universal healthcare, a great education system and (occasional nutters aside) low crime rates and safety? Sign me up! Although you'll all have to stop drinking as alcohol is insanely expensive in Norway, on the up side cars attract 100% tax so the value of our clapped out old Omegas will go up significantly.


And this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246104/Unemployed-single-mother-benefits-spends-2-000-Christmas-20-presents-children.html

Snippet: Unemployed single mother on benefits spends £2k on Christmas presents and claims she is better off on benefits and would not get a job unless she could continue her luxury lifestyle, which includes designer outfits, holidays abroad, clubbing, lunches out and expensive gifts for her daughters Zelekah, two, and Zakirah, one.



Hope you've all got your blood pressure pills to hand

I am sure you have put this piece in from the 'wonderful' MailOnline with tongue in cheek!

I struggled once to bring up a family with all the costs on well over a salary of twice (in the 1980's) the "ladies" benefits.  If anyone believes you can properly cloth, and feed two children, plus yourself with heating bills etc on £15K and then can afford "luxury" holidays abroad, going constantly to clubs, buying designer clothes and fabulous jewellery, with so much cash left over she can buy her children 20 expensive presents each, is frankly living in cuckoo land!

Remember also that with her costs set to increase dramatically as the kids get older, if she has any spare cash then it will soon be used up.

No, this is yet another example of "shock" journalism feeding on the current theme of jealousy, thinking others are getting more than you are, and especially the witch hunt on "benefit cheats" that actually represent a tiny percentage of all claimants. 

We have again a sample of one section of the public being turned against another.  I warn again about the dangers, very real dangers for our society of this trend.