How middle class families pay 49% of income in taxes - The Telegraph

ninky_2

carolt wrote: »

I think it is easy for someone such as yourself, who is childless, to accuse others of being bitter and desiring a 'glamorous' lifestyle.

why is it easy? i've made the not particularly easy decision not to have children. also, glamorous lifestyle is different things to different people. being able to enjoy meals out sometimes, go to cinema, art galleries, have haircuts that aren't the cheapest ones etc could be seen as glamorous.

kabayiri

carolt wrote: »

Please explain to me why that is fair and I am 'bitter' to feel otherwise. I don't get it, I really don't.

Yes I'm bitter (with a lemon twist) and I admit it.

Why? Because I have paid a shed load of taxes over the last decade, and what I can look forward to is them coming and asking me for yet more.

At least I have use of a world class public transport service for that which is cheap. Oh, err, strike that. We don't have that, do we?

carolt

ninky wrote: »

i could feel angry at paying for things for your children out of my taxes (e.g. free schooling).

equally you could look at the lives of others less fortunate who pay to sustain your current level of living. as westerners we all benefit from the struggles of others in other countries.

i've made these points before but those on benefits do not have a better standard of living than you. that is a daily mail myth. those who claim benefits and work cash in hand might do but that is a totally different issue to do with fraud.

i don't know you but i presume you and yours are fed and watered, have a roof over your heads, enjoy the occassional holiday and maybe even have a bit of disposable income to spend on hobbies. you clearly have some leisure time or you wouldn't post on here.

what exactly are you campaigning for. more for you or less for them? i can't see that you have a very valid argument to ask for more so you are going to have to argue others have less.

I find you a funny sort of socialist, ninky.

I would call myself a socialist, because I believe in to each according to his need, from each according to his ability.

Your socialism stops at the end of the first bit - to each according to his need.

I don't think a society where some contribute NOTHING is fair. I don't see why some should be given all their needs without making their contribution - particularly if the only way to fund that is by my making a DOUBLE contribution.

You for some unaccountable reason only seem to focus on how much people have at the end of the month in cash terms - you ignore (a) how much they have contributed to gain that, and (b) the things that you can't put a cash value on but which I'd argue matter every bit as much as the cash, if not rather more, like TIME to spend with your loved ones, relaxing, hell, just doing whatever you want...; or security - not having to worry about whether you can afford to pay the rent, because LHA picks up the tab, not having to worry about getting chucked out of your council flat if you can't pay the mortgae/rent, because you have security of tenure that private tenants (or mortgage-holders) could only dream of...

I could go on.

I dare say your variety of socialism is much more fashionable within the Labour Party these days; it's why I stopped voting Labour, BTW.

That doesn't mean it doesn't stink though.

ninky_2

bitterness is drinking poison and hoping the other person will die.

carolt

That was a pointlessly trite comment.

I see you have no answers to the points I made.

I certainly don't wish anyone dead; I would like others to contribute to the costs of their own upkeep, yes.

Not quite sure how you manage to confuse the two.

The_White_Horse

ninky wrote: »

bitterness is drinking poison and hoping the other person will die.

i think you are coonfusing bitterness with stupidity.

typical lefty nonsense.

silvercar

I'm changing my view. I did think it was outrageous that LHA paid enough to house a family with kids in what would be the top end of the scale in my area (a family with 3 kids could get a detached 4 bed on the LHA rates round here). I can see that workers on middling incomes couldn't afford to equal that (in terms of rent or mortgage).

But then I see that JSA and CTC (which is the only benefit that can be spent as opposed to being used to pay rent / council tax etc) would be not much more than a grand a month. If you are in the 4 bed detached house, your ulitilty bills are going to be high and £1k a month won't stretch very far in feeding clothing, transport, kids spends etc for a family of 5.

So I've now decided that its tough being on benefit; harder to budget than on an income. Though I still think LHA is too high.

ninky_2

carolt wrote: »

That was a pointlessly trite comment.

I see you have no answers to the points I made.

I certainly don't wish anyone dead; I would like others to contribute to the costs of their own upkeep, yes.

Not quite sure how you manage to confuse the two.

er actually you will see out posts crossed so it wasn't in response to your latest post.

i don't call myself a socialist. i think there are a lot of reasons why the system is how it is and i'd say levels of benefit (in terms of seeing them as too high), is not really one of the big problems.

there are plenty who have taken more than their 'fair' share and continue to enjoy the spoils of this, whilst cleverly playing the myth that they are deserving of a bigger portion.

perhaps if the tax avoidance of the super rich was addressed we could all enjoy a little more to go around. to me that is the bigger issue. the carping between the less well off (benefit claimants and otherwise) plays right into the hands of the mega wealthy elite. a very handy distraction.

ninky_2

carolt wrote: »

I don't think a society where some contribute NOTHING is fair. I don't see why some should be given all their needs without making their contribution - particularly if the only way to fund that is by my making a DOUBLE contribution.
.

how are you making a double contribution? tax goes to pay for lots of things you use. benefits is a very small part of that.

also, the numbers of working age people on a longterm benefit that is not sickness related are relatively low. in feb 2009 only 40, 000. i think you are seeing the problem as bigger than it is.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/14/index.shtml

silvercar

Its a double contribution because you pay your own rent and your taxes pay the rent of those on benefit.