Fair?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

According to this calculator.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966

People with household incomes similar to Hamish pay £27,221 more in taxation than they receive in benefits and services.

Average Tax Paid = £34,161

Average Benefits and services received = £6,940

Amount Hamish subsidises the rest of you scoundrels every year = more than £27,221...:mad:

For the reasons why, watch BBC 2 now as Nick Robinson explains "the trouble with tax".....

Graham_Devon

Blimey, put yourself on quite the pedestal there haven't you Hamish.

"The rest of us"? You know for sure your the richest here, do you?

If you can do without the rest of us scoundrels, leave the country, and earn the same money elsewhere.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Blimey, put yourself on quite the pedestal there haven't you Hamish.

"The rest of us"? You know for sure your the richest here, do you?

If you can do without the rest of us scoundrels, leave the country, and earn the same money elsewhere.

Oh !!!!!! Graham, you scoundrel..... you wastrel..... you miscreant...... you knave..... you little scamp you......:p

(Take it as the light hearted p1sstake it was meant as):D

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

And lets get back on topic.

The top 10% of earners pay 53% of all income tax collected.

Why exactly should ordinary people like me, subsidise ordinary people like you?

Why should smokers subsidise the healthcare of non-smokers? Why should drinkers subsidise the healthcare of non drinkers? Why should poor drivers in rural Scotland (or Devon) subsidise the train fares of rich Londoners?

Or more relevantly, why shouldn't almost all services be paid for on a "fee for service" or "pay per use" basis?

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And lets get back on topic.

The top 10% of earners pay 53% of all income tax collected.

Why exactly should ordinary people like me, subsidise ordinary people like you?

Why should smokers subsidise the healthcare of non-smokers? Why should drinkers subsidise the healthcare of non drinkers? Why should poor drivers in rural Scotland (or Devon) subsidise the train fares of rich Londoners?

Or more relevantly, why shouldn't almost all services be paid for on a "fee for service" or "pay per use" basis?

Because it protects the most vulnerable in our society.... You big numpty:eek:

DervProf

Over the years I have paid way more in car insurance premiums than I have claimed. Why should I subsidise those who do make claims ?

I never use libraries either, so why do I have to pay for them ?

And thinking about it, I didn't really agree with the Iraq war, so why should the tax I pay include the cost of sending our troops into that war ?

Mind you, I can't complain too much, as this tax system is the same one that makes the likes of Hamish "out of pocket" as far as his tax payments go. If he appeared a little less greedy, and full of himself, I might conjure up a bit of sympathy, but I can't.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

DervProf wrote: »

I never use libraries either, so why do I have to pay for them ?

I don't think you should.

My local council closed the council owned Ice Rink a few years ago. There was a big outcry from the few hundred families whose children used it.

I had a conversation with one of those parents once, it went a lot like this.....

Annoyed Parent: It's a scandal that the council is closing the Ice Rink, where are my kids going to skate now?

Me: Why should I pay for your childrens hobby?

AP: But I pay council taxes!!!

Me: So do I. But I don't expect the council to subsidise my hobbies. They've offered to turn the facility over to a club if you meet the running costs, why not just set up a local club with the few hundred parents and each of you that feel strongly about it can pay £500 or so a year to run the rink?

AP: We could never afford to pay for that!!!!

Me: So what makes you think I should pay for it instead?

Many councils are closing libraries, and many libraries are underused. Let libraries be on a fee per use basis. If the demand exists, they'll stay open. If not, they'll close.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Because it protects the most vulnerable in our society.... You big numpty:eek:

Define vulnerable......

macaque_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

According to this calculator.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966

People with household incomes similar to Hamish pay £27,221 more in taxation than they receive in benefits and services.

Average Tax Paid = £34,161

Average Benefits and services received = £6,940

Amount Hamish subsidises the rest of you scoundrels every year = more than £27,221...:mad:

For the reasons why, watch BBC 2 now as Nick Robinson explains "the trouble with tax".....

Good point Hamish and while they are at it, perhaps they could take another look at interest rates so that pensioner's are not given derisory returns on their savings to bail out reckless borrowers and lenders.

Going4TheDream

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And lets get back on topic.

The top 10% of earners pay 53% of all income tax collected.

Why exactly should ordinary people like me, subsidise ordinary people like you?

Why should smokers subsidise the healthcare of non-smokers? Why should drinkers subsidise the healthcare of non drinkers? Why should poor drivers in rural Scotland (or Devon) subsidise the train fares of rich Londoners?

Or more relevantly, why shouldn't almost all services be paid for on a "fee for service" or "pay per use" basis?

Do you mean

Why should English students pay £9k in fees for University when Scottish kids pay nothing?

Why should English people pay prescriptions when they are free in Scotland (and Wales?)?

I am sure there are other examples?

vivatifosi

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Many councils are closing libraries, and many libraries are underused. Let libraries be on a fee per use basis. If the demand exists, they'll stay open. If not, they'll close.

Not a library user then Hamish? You'll have to trust me on this one, but closing libraries is a very retrograde step in a way that closing an ice rink isn't. Why? Because libraries do more than issue books.

For one thing, as about the only civic amenity still open in many towns, we keep the homeless warm for the day and stop them dying. And if you think that's over emotive, yes I have known one of my customers to leave of a night and die. Further as day centres shut, we also increasingly find ourselves offering a safe place for the mentally ill.

Another thing we do is provide computers for people who need them. Now anyone requiring benefits or access to many state services, or applying for jobs, need access to computers because of online application. If you close libraries, suggesting these people will sit in internet cafes and do their stuff is crazy because they have no money to do so. Therefore it is entirely possible that the government would need to do more to provide either call centres or face to face access for things like accessing services and this would cost a lot more. If they can't apply for jobs, then you'll have to pay out more in unemployment benefits. If you think that's the Job Centre's role, who do you think sends them to us?

In the grand scheme of things, libraries are pretty cheap to run and providing alternatives: reinstating day centres, putting paper systems back in for benefit claims and paying more unemployment benefit than you need to because people can't apply for jobs would cost a lot more.