Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

British Tax:Families with one bread-winner pay highest tax in developed world of - 73 PER CENT

page: 6
34
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


In other words, the "Entitlement Culture".

Also why tax is so high on things like fuel and why the VAT rate is so high (for us). Money has to be clawed back from somewhere.

In real terms, for me, benefits should simply be for those that need benefits (ie, the poorest and most vulnerable in society). Those on middle income or higher should really not be getting some of the perks they do receive. The problem is though, that thanks to New Labour, these people believe they are entitled to benefits also.

This, for me, is purely about economics and nothing else.




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Here Here, I couldn't agree more.


Korg.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Yeah I read that someone says this is the case, but I don't see any numbers to back up the assertion. There is something in there about adding in benefits they are unable to receive. So now not qualifying for welfare is an extra tax?

The whole article is a bunch of BS.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Yeah I read that someone says this is the case, but I don't see any numbers to back up the assertion. There is something in there about adding in benefits they are unable to receive. So now not qualifying for welfare is an extra tax?

The whole article is a bunch of BS.


I seem to recall hearing some rather spurious explanation that not qualifying for a benefit is effectively a reduction in income, similar to a tax. I think the idea is something along these lines:

"Random benefit" is worth £100 per week. You can get it if you earn less than £100 per week.
Person A earns £100 per week so does not qualify.
Person B earn £99 per week so does qualify.

Person A still has £100 per week income while Person B now has £199 per week income. This is treated as an effective additional tax of £100 (50% of potential income if he had received the benefit) per week on Person A.

It still sounds stupid if you ask me, whatever the reason given.
edit on 7-12-2012 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Despite the detailed difficulties it would throw up on exactly WHO out of the thousands claiming benefits to give it to, I believe that you should earn your vote by being a working person, or having past work experience and be looking for work. It would involve a very large amount of detail as to who to give the rights to and not, example, retired OAP's who had worked all their life - YES, others who have lived on benefits all their lives - NO. Therefore all of the dole-spongers who make their life out of living on the benefits system without any hint of an interest at working, will not be able to vote in governments that try and sway these peoples votes.

Of course this would not include those on benefits such as people unable to work through injury, disability etc, or those who have had work, or younger people who are actively interested in work, but rather eliminating those that are not interested in working at all in life and would rather take our taxes to pay for their binge drinking, partying, drug filled lives.

Whilst I believe a lot of these people are born into that lifestyle, and do not know any better, I still think it is a shame for them, they are lost souls almost - people without ambition.

I write this from experience, I myself spent 6 months on Job Seekers benefits, honestly looking for a job related to my degree, I lived in a council flat block (but in a rented flat amongst the council ones, bought years ago by the owner) and saw first hand some of the people that I explain above, that should have their 'right' to vote eliminated unless they come away from living off the benefit system. The people I mention, that I lived around for a year, had no ambitions, they lived bi-weekly looking forward to their 'wage' as they called it, from the government. Life would involve booze, gambling, loud music till the early hours and consistently throughout the day, punch ups, and the whole family would be involved in swindling the benefit system somehow, and this isn't just one set of people in one flat near me, it was a whole postcode of the city, and much more.

Of course, as I am not planning on writing an essay here, there are what appears to be a lot of sweeping generalisations for short-handedness of course, I don't want to go into heavy detail, but more relay an idea.

Not all of them were bad people, but rather, they had no hope from the start, sadly for them. Born into the poverty gap at the bottom of the social class ladder, and left there to continue that lifestyle, of course some break out of it, others make a life from it.

It will probably come across as a rather harsh idea, but I believe it would be a better voting system if you EARN your right to vote. Why should the opinion of someone who who doesn't work and put anything into this society have an equal voting right as someone who does? Especially when the workers are paying for their 'way of life' - their 'wage' every two weeks.

And before anyone asks, I do not read the Daily Mail!





new topics

top topics
 
34
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join