What do you think so far of the Condem proposals on welfare/public sector reform?

Generali

blueboy43 wrote: »

Or

Much more likely to have heavily subsidised higher education for their children.

Or

Likely to live significantly longer drawing a state pension. (life expectancy many years longer say comparing Dorest with Glasgow).

Top 1% of earners pay 24.1% of income tax, top 10% pay 53.3% (link). Also more likely to pay VAT on a higher proportion of purchases, stamp duty on house and share purchases, death duties, more VED, more petrol taxes on the gas guzzlers, more airport taxes........

I think a subsidised education for their kids isn't a huge amount to give back as a national Thank You for their generosity.

shortchanged_2

Really2 wrote: »

Benefits are a lot less than a full time wage even in the worse case and no one found a job it is cheaper to have them on benefits.
But you would hope the redundant people would try to find work, presumably that was not tax payer funded.

Don't forget though that someone who is earning money will also pay more back into the system via taxes, NI etc. Someone who is on benefits and has a family can claim a large amount of state handouts in the form of housing benefit, jobseekers allowance etc, probably as much as some people can earn.

Also, don't forget who helps to pay many of the private sectors peoples wages and bonuses. People who work in the public sector funnily enough use banks for mortgages, loans, savings etc. They also spend money in retail etc. If there is less money going around, guess what, everyone is a loser!

michaels

Yeah - lets take away all the money that allows them to do these things that you are envious of by taxing them more.

It will be a shame for the car dealers, petrol station workers, car assembly line workers, private nurses, private school teachers, gym employees, golf club employees, beauticians etc who will all be unemployed - but hey what price solidarity? :j

And of course your kids will probably lose there place at the local school or at any rate have to be in bigger classes due to the previously privately educated children taking their places in the state schools and your grandmother will have to wait longer for her hip operation as some of those who now go privately will instead be on the waiting list ahead of her - but again that is all worth it in the name of 'solidarity' :beer:

marklv wrote: »

Nobody forces the 4X4 driving classes to send their kids to private school or pay £80 a month for private health and a similar amount each for gym membership, gold club membership, spa club membership etc. They do all this out of choice. If they were more conservative with their money instead of squandering it on inessentials they would be really well off, instead they moan about high taxes and the increasing cost of facials [sigh].

blueboy43

Generali wrote: »

Top 1% of earners pay 24.1% of income tax, top 10% pay 53.3% (link). Also more likely to pay VAT on a higher proportion of purchases, stamp duty on house and share purchases, death duties, more VED, more petrol taxes on the gas guzzlers, more airport taxes........

I think a subsidised education for their kids isn't a huge amount to give back as a national Thank You for their generosity.

I never saw you as one of the people who favoured a hammock for social protection rather than a safety net.

It won't be the poor taking to the streets fighting for their state goodies, it will be the middle class, whether its fighting University fee increases or fighting for their nicely paid statist jobs & pensions.

bendix

michaels wrote: »

Yeah - lets take away all the money that allows them to do these things that you are envious of by taxing them more.

It will be a shame for the car dealers, petrol station workers, car assembly line workers, private nurses, private school teachers, gym employees, golf club employees, beauticians etc who will all be unemployed - but hey what price solidarity? :j

And of course your kids will probably lose there place at the local school or at any rate have to be in bigger classes due to the previously privately educated children taking their places in the state schools and your grandmother will have to wait longer for her hip operation as some of those who now go privately will instead be on the waiting list ahead of her - but again that is all worth it in the name of 'solidarity' :beer:

You're wasting your time. marklv's entire posting history is testament to his bitterness of his own failings in life.

His contribution to the debate about how to fix the deficit is 'do anything so long as it doesn't affect me' and his faux concern for the working class is tempered by his resentment towards immigrants, anyone who isn't white and anyone who has achieved anything in this life.

His posts make an interesting psychological study.

Generali

blueboy43 wrote: »

I never saw you as one of the people who favoured a hammock for social protection rather than a safety net.

I don't. My comment was a bit of a gentle leg pull aimed at people that think that taxnig the rich 'until the pips squeak' is the way to some socialist nirvana where nobody will want and we can all live in some bliss of equality of outcome. Sarcasm doesn't come across well in the written word.

blueboy43 wrote: »

It won't be the poor taking to the streets fighting for their state goodies, it will be the middle class,

The English middle classes will not be fighting in the streets, it ain't gonna happen. There'll be a few of those terribly nice protests that happened when Radio 4 threatened to change their schedule a little. They'll just vote for another round of Labour BS about how you can have, as someone posted here yesterday, European public services with American tax levels.

bendix

On the contrary, Generali, those who will be driving any protests will be the middle class supporters of the Socialist Workers Party, the Communists, Greens (all of whom will be taking a sabbatical from their Surbiton families and doiong the protest thing to rile daddy, carefully ensuring their dreadlocks are caught on camera and their che guevara teeshirts are fashionably dirty), supported, of course, by the £100,000 a year earning TUC elite.

The working classes of Britain have never been much into protesting and rioting. It gets in the way of the telly.

Twas ever thus.

red_devil

jamespmg44 wrote: »

The benefits system needs to be slashed dramatically - far far too many people make the lifestyle choice of living on benefits and never having a job.

The bloated public sector with thousands of non jobs needs to be trimmed back as well.

So I'd say I probably do agree with them.

if the benefit system is slashed dramatically we could have more crime than we have now and we would need more prison places which would cost money.

I wouldnt want to live in a world where there is more crime than there is now would you?

neverdespairgirl

Really2 wrote: »

Benefits are a lot less than a full time wage even in the worse case and no one found a job it is cheaper to have them on benefits.
But you would hope the redundant people would try to find work, presumably that was not tax payer funded.

Benefits can be an awful lot more than a full time wage, with housing / children included.

Running_On_Empty

Much of the discussion from the socialist faction exposes their naked envy of anyone who has studied hard, works hard and spends their money as they choose.
Their views exemplify the politics of envy.
See them running around on the House Price Crash site too, rather like cockroaches.