It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by TFCJay
I am not saying Obama has anything to do with you, I am just trying to make the point that any kind of head of state, be that a Royal Family or a Presidency, brings a cost. Thus getting rid of the Royal Family may not necessarily save us any money as a tax payer. In fact it might cost us more as the Royals do bring in a lot of tourism directed solely at them.
Originally posted by GrandStrategy
Originally posted by Bearack
Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
It has long been known that the British taxation system has been of the higher variety when compared with the rest of the world, but this is just ridiculous. I can barely afford to feed myself but the government still takes its 73% cut. I hope the system crashes, so that when my kids grow up there will be something different in place. Nothing can be worse than this version of "capitalism".
This has ZERO to do with capitalism. This is 100% socialism at it's finest. Redistribute the wealth from the productive to the non-productive.... Hasn't worked in the past and still hasn't worked to date.
Redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with socialism.
Originally posted by michael1983l
Yes thats right, your read it right, single earner families in the UK with 2 adults and 2 children pay a whopping 73% in tax.
Originally posted by BearackMarriam Webster
Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Nationalization (British English spelling nationalisation) is the process of taking a private industry or private assets into public ownership by a national government or state.
Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism....
The word “capitalism” was coined by the socialists, often used as a pejorative, and has historically described a system of state-granted privilege and plutocracy. This is the definition to which most people subscribe, and which I would argue prevails today. A contrary definition is one that is synonymous, or nearly synonymous with “free markets”. My best guess is that this “definition” is a the result of a revisionist attempt to hijack the term “free markets”.
Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
It has long been known that the British taxation system has been of the higher variety when compared with the rest of the world, but this is just ridiculous. I can barely afford to feed myself but the government still takes its 73% cut. I hope the system crashes, so that when my kids grow up there will be something different in place. Nothing can be worse than this version of "capitalism".
Originally posted by korathin
A better word to describe what is going on in the UK isn't capitalism, but rather post industrial feudalism.
Originally posted by zigguratvertigo
Little Imogen will have to give up her ballet lesson! How dare this government remove benefits from the middle class... this is an outrage!
Seriously, listening to people earning a minimum of £50k moan about money sickens me. For a start a good deal of these people are going to have accountants who only remit is to pay the absolute minimum in tax. If they can't live without child benefit, they are doing something wrong. You know, cancel the golf membership... maybe take a skiing trip every other year. Take ownership, and buckle down like the rest of us.
Plus, as a lot have people have pointed out, calculating the loss of child benefit as a tax if about the dumbest feat of maths I think I've come across. I would say it pretty much verges on the side of lying.
All men are created equal and there are certain unalienable rights that governments should never violate. These rights include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When a government fails to protect those rights, it is not only the right, but also the duty of the people to overthrow that government. In its place, the people should establish a government that is designed to protect those rights.
Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
Funny that no, how you have to pay to live on the land you were born on.
But considering all the other crap people pay taxes on to have the luxury of believing they have something, well this is somewhere down on the bottom of the list. I think they should eliminate what they seriously don't need from there taxes, you know cut expenses, first on the list would be the whole bureaucracy thing, I mean who really needs all that #, especially when one computer can probably do all the work millions of paper pushers do. Second they should remove themselves from all parasites such as governments, corporations, and the elites, I mean really other then constantly look for ways to screw over the working class they have no other definite use other then siphoning energy off the others, so like you know cut expenses people if it does not work then why keep it around, its nuking stupid. This planet is so ass backwards it would be best to get rid of everything and start all over, its like a total epic failure and its way past time for people to realize that.
Originally posted by michael1983l
Yes thats right, your read it right, single earner families in the UK with 2 adults and 2 children pay a whopping 73% in tax.
www.dailymail.co.uk...
Originally posted by michael1983l
Yes thats right, your read it right, single earner families in the UK with 2 adults and 2 children pay a whopping 73% in tax.
A new study shows households with two children and two adults, but only one bread-winner, pay about 73 per cent in tax - made up largely from income tax, national insurance contributions and the removal of some benefits.
It means these families take home just 27p in every £1 earned - up to three times less than families in comparative countries.
In Germany, families pay about 40 per cent tax while the figure in France is only 20 per cent.
www.dailymail.co.uk...
And Dave is busy sat in number 10 wondering why the UK economy is faltering, that is because we have no spare cash to spend in the shops after we have finished paying you. Families in the UK are really struggling, Children are not eating properly and they are going without basic sanitation and clothing. But it is all right, Starbucks and Google don't have to pay any tax because we as a nation are loaded due to the amount of tax I and others pay.
It is time for a REVOLT against this government, a vote of no confidence and the election of UKIP. We need to leave the leech that is the EU and we need to stop filling the trough's so that fat pig politicians can get them self fat off.
This is plainly unacceptable and needs to change NOW.