'Troubled' Families Could Be Legally Banned From Spending Benefits On Alcohol And Tobacco

reply to post by Stevie777


Your (random - it does not pertain to the discussion) analogy falls flat.

VAT is only payable on revenue exceeding £77k per annum, which is the only tax you'd pay on taking it to a garage. If matey boy does the work for £500 and only does that once a month, he is not going to break the threshold.

It is the vendors responsibility to charge for VAT, not yours to pay it. If you pay cash in hand, you are not "guilty by association" as you are just going to a sole trader. It's up to him to report his revenue and taxes to HMRC.

Same with the takeaway. Or would you have me check Vodafones financial statement every year to ensure they are paying the right amount of tax? No, of course not.

reply to post by stumason


so would you be happy to pay £500 to someone you knew was ripping off the state instead of £1000 that you knew as all legal and above board ....simple question that you seemed to avoid ??????

reply to post by Stevie777


It's not a simple question though, is it? Your ignoring very pertinent facts which would determine whether it was actually someone ripping off the state or not.

Getting your mate to do it as a one off is not ripping off the state. Like I said, he has to have revenue of £77k or more per year before he is liable to be paying VAT, which is the only tax you would pay on a "proper" garage doing it.

And I have grassed people in for benefit fraud, my own sister included.

reply to post by eletheia

Well there are many 'poor' people working a full week and paying taxes who don't receive as

much as some people who are on 'benefits',

So is that the fault of the person on benefits or a society that allows employers to pay such poor wages that despite working all week people still have to go cap in hand to the state?

Also when a person is on benefits it opens the

door for them recieving additional housing and council tax payments and free dental treatment,

And what exactly is wrong with that?

whereas the 'poor' worker on a low paid job who takes home less money has to find the

money for that AS WELL!

Well perhaps if legislation hadn't been passed that allows such crappy wages to be paid for an honest days work that wouldn't be the case.

Unfortunately it looks like people are so brow beaten they are prepared to work for a pittance and then blame those even worse off than themselves for the situation they are in all whilst the wealthy in society are making even more profit than they ever have done.

It all seems arse about face to me - rather than blaming those worse off and more vulnerable and needy why not let's apportion the blame on those that messed up the economy in the first place and who have continued to exploit both the ordinary, hard working people of this country and the under-privelidged and needy whilst creaming off even larger amounts of profit for their own personal gain.

reply to post by Freeborn


Just thought I'd chime in and say a legislated higher min wage would cripple our economy - one already struggling to compete with the slave economies of the East.

What we really need to do is legislate against excessive salaries/bonuses etc and make sure the workers get a fair slice of the profit, not add to the cost.

reply to post by stumason


I don't think any reasonable person thinks that there aren't 'problem families' who neglect their parental duties or who exploit the benefit system to leech off society and that undoubtedly needs addressing.

But this seems like part of a broader demonisation of all who are on benefits and is very much the thin end of the wedge.

Who determines what constitutes a 'problem family'?

I could quite easily spin a report on almost every single family unit I know to either portray them as uncaring and undeserving or the exact opposite depending on how I felt - and I know that some social workers etc do that.

It's classic deflection tactics.

Whilst we debate the rights and wrongs of this we are no longer complaining about the politicians, bankers and industrialists who decimated the manufacturing base of this country, brought about a housing boom that has crippled us, got us into huge amounts of debt and generally screwed this country over - and are continuing to do so.

We bitch like hell with each other whilst they continue unabated living their lives of ease and greed.

Maybe we were getting too close to them and everyone was beginning to see 'them' for what they are, they needed a new enemy.

Seems like mission accomplished to me.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Stevie777

 

It's not a simple question though, is it? Your ignoring very pertinent facts which would determine whether it was actually someone ripping off the state or not.

Getting your mate to do it as a one off is not ripping off the state. Like I said, he has to have revenue of £77k or more per year before he is liable to be paying VAT, which is the only tax you would pay on a "proper" garage doing it.

And I have grassed people in for benefit fraud, my own sister included.

Very nice of you....let me rephrase the question...Bobby down the street signs on the dole, but does car repair on the grip/side/whilst claiming benefits and not declaring his extra income...would you get him to repair your car for the £500 mentioned so you could save £500 without sticking him in to the authorities....how hard can this question be....it's always the one's who repeatedly avoid the simple questions who have something to hide....is anyone else here failing to understand my original questions or is it just StuMason....????

reply to post by stumason

Just thought I'd chime in and say a legislated higher min wage would cripple our economy - one already struggling to compete with the slave economies of the East.

That's a fair point stu - but because workers in the East are conditioned or prepared to work for a pittance does that mean that workers over here have to?
That's not progress but regression.

I understand that many smaller employers can not pay as good wages as we would like them to but when large companies and corporations, who regularly announce record profits, are paying subsistence level wages there is something morally wrong.

With the amount of wealth and resource generated in this country I find it disgraceful that a person who works all week, and some of these are skilled people, has to still apply to the government for assisitance just to be able to provide the bare essentials.

What we really need to do is legislate against excessive salaries/bonuses etc and make sure the workers get a fair slice of the profit, not add to the cost.

That's one of several pieces of legislation that would help improve things.

Priority has to be given to getting people back into gainful employment and pay a fair days wage for a fair days work - that is all the majority of people want - it's not asking a lot in this day and age.

Another idiotic scheme. They want to introduce food stamps int the uk anyways.

It will just create a new thriving black market. These people have no idea whatsoever.

People will sell thier food stamps for less than they are worth to fuel thier addiction, thy will be far worse off and crime will only go higher.

I don't want my money being spent on B2 Bombers or surveillance technology to read my email and internet patterns. I don't want my money being spent on the Pentagon when they somehow misplace 2.3 Trillion dollars. Trust me that's where most of your tax dollars go and for people to keep bringing up Welfare and Disability like that's the problem is laughable to me. The Military has Black Budgets where they don't even tell Congress how much they're spending because it's classified.

reply to post by jzenman


Zactly.....

Originally posted by Sostratus

At the same time, this would be one step for the government in taking away people's right to decide how they spend their money.

It's not their money and even though I don't mind my money helping the less fortunate, I do not want my money being spent on alcohol & tobacco for the less fortunate.

Quite right... I agree wholeheartedly.

... and if you do want cash for other say 'luxury items' over and above the basic rights of food and shelter (cigarettes, booze etc), well there's all these parks, roadsides and other public places that now resemble 'Rubbish Dumps' that need cleaning up... you help clean them, we'll pay you cash for your time. You know... just like how the rest of us pay for our cigarettes, booze and other 'comforts'.

They really need to address the more serious issue though of how 'additional benefit payment' reflective of each individual child a beneficiary has is being spent. This should be about why this extra money those less fortunate receive and which is meant specifically for meeting the needs of raising a child and ensuring they're fed and clothed properly and don't go to school everyday hungry or cold.

Any counter-argument about 'intruding on people's individual rights around they spend 'their' money (benefit payment compliments of the tax-payer)' should be pretty much addressed in its entity right there I think you'd find; That's actually your children's money... it's not yours in the first place, so STFU.

Just sayin.

You know, it used to be a safety net to prevent completely becoming destitute, but now it has become an alternate lifestyle. You don't have much, but not much is required from you either. Imagine wasting the mosdt productive years of your life loafing....

Originally posted by milkyway12
How many millions is this going to cost to regulate and enforce? I would like to know the cost. Nvm. Seems this is the UK.

edit on 15-10-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

probably a lot more than it did before. you see the government keep bringing new things and as long as those things target the unemployed as lazy scum bags then the people are happy regardless of all the extra tax money that has to be spent to implement and run all the new systems and contracts offered to companies to do it on their behalf.

but i believe it would work to do what it intends, the problem however is it will probably only make a small percent change as the majority on unemployment cannot afford smokes and booze either. so would the cost be worth preventing 'some' people?

I doubt it but it makes the haters happy and makes it seem the government are on their side, screw the extra costs.

I reckon any money received in benefits for children should be spent on children to regardless of if your working or not, why should tax payers pay for other peoples children for them to neglect the children and spend it on fags and booze.

slippery slope.

should have been like this from the beginning.

instead of demonizing a decent move by government for once, you should be thanking them for trying to ignore all the tobacco and booze lobbyist that are currently filling their voicemail.

There are two types of people on benefits


# 1...Is the person who has lost their job and needs some help till they find another

# 2...Is the person who makes a full time career out of claiming benefits.

And this thread appears to be lumping them together, and to my mind they are very different.


I feel that 'basic' rate x 35 (7 hrs daily, 5 days a week) should be the top level that any

claimant should receive as it is equal to the wage of the lowest paid workers (who also

have deductions on that wage)


And to those of you who come back with 'that is no wage for a worker'...when i got my

first job i was a 'low' paid 'dogs body' running errands making tea etc. I went to evening

classes, improved my skills, got promotion, then moved on to other jobs with better

prospects.....It seems to me these days that no one wants to work themselves up

from the bottom - they all want to start at the top.


M&S and Tesco's were started by one man with the motto "Stack em high and sell

them cheap" on the premise of the old Scots saying that

"Many a mickle makes a muckle"

reply to post by salamanda

and if you do want cash for other say 'luxury items' over and above the basic rights of food and shelter (cigarettes, booze etc), well there's all these parks, roadsides and other public places that now resemble 'Rubbish Dumps' that need cleaning up... you help clean them, we'll pay you cash for your time. You know... just like how the rest of us pay for our cigarettes, booze and other 'comforts'.

Err.....how will 'you' pay them for cleaning 'parks, roadsides and other public places'?
Directly out of your income?
Or do you expect councils or the government to pay people to do such work?

Surprisingly they used to pay people to do such work but increasingly the people employed to do so have been made redundant due to the 'austerity cuts' imposed by Cameron and his cronies.
These people are now receiving benefits, which is their right after paying tax and NI contributions etc - yet you would have them do the self same work just for the benefits they receive - I really hope you see the irony in that and how it is just wrong no matter how you look at it.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by salamanda

 

and if you do want cash for other say 'luxury items' over and above the basic rights of food and shelter (cigarettes, booze etc), well there's all these parks, roadsides and other public places that now resemble 'Rubbish Dumps' that need cleaning up... you help clean them, we'll pay you cash for your time. You know... just like how the rest of us pay for our cigarettes, booze and other 'comforts'.

Err.....how will 'you' pay them for cleaning 'parks, roadsides and other public places'?
Directly out of your income?
Or do you expect councils or the government to pay people to do such work?

Surprisingly they used to pay people to do such work but increasingly the people employed to do so have been made redundant due to the 'austerity cuts' imposed by Cameron and his cronies.
These people are now receiving benefits, which is their right after paying tax and NI contributions etc - yet you would have them do the self same work just for the benefits they receive - I really hope you see the irony in that and how it is just wrong no matter how you look at it.

Just to add to that, the government couldn't afford to keep those people employed but it can afford a scheme that saves no money but only dictates to people instead. even more insulting to those who lost their jobs in the 'cuts'. I'd be asking how come you couldn't afford to keep me on, but you can afford this?

reply to post by Freeborn






I seem to remember that when 'Cameron and his cronies' came into office there was an IOU

which had been left in the chancelors office by Liam Byrne and Ed Balls stating

"Sorry mate there's NO money left"

Originally posted by Sostratus

At the same time, this would be one step for the government in taking away people's right to decide how they spend their money.

It's not their money and even though I don't mind my money helping the less fortunate, I do not want my money being spent on alcohol & tobacco for the less fortunate.

Well if they worked for a time maybe years... it is their money they are just getting back the money they put in the system the time they were working.

if you do not want people spending your money on alcohol or tabacco... how about you quit your job??



This will just make a blackmarket hahahaha.