Are you a good citizen?

Mistermeaner

chucknorris wrote: »

As far as I know my dog has never poo'd in your (or anyone else's) house, but if you give me your address I'd be happy to rectify that. If you live too far away, I could always mail it to you, and you could place it yourself.

cleaning up after your dog cannot be used to offset the dirty !!!!!!s round my way who aren't so considerate im afraid.

Bizarrely I did come home yesterday to one of those royal mail 'theres a parcel at your local delivery office' things and I've no idea what it could be as I've not ordered anything for ages. Were you ahead of the game on this one?

michaels

prosaver wrote: »

I thought you could get them (16 hours or more)
this is allway s a good site...
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/in-work-or-looking-for-work/benefits-and-tax-credits-for-people-in-work/

DW is a SAHM so I believe it is 24 hours for me but thanks for the link.

chucknorris

Mistermeaner wrote: »

cleaning up after your dog cannot be used to offset the dirty !!!!!!s round my way who aren't so considerate im afraid.

Bizarrely I did come home yesterday to one of those royal mail 'theres a parcel at your local delivery office' things and I've no idea what it could be as I've not ordered anything for ages. Were you ahead of the game on this one?

I'm afraid not, you'll have to be patient, if only I had the power to see the into future, but if I did, I wouldn't have wasted it on mailing dog poo, I would have probably followed crashy's strategy, and rented a bedsit in Edinburgh all those years ago.

Conrad

Mistermeaner wrote: »

My preconception is that most of the left leaning folk have great morals about what society should be doing and providing but strangely it is always someone else who should be paying more tax to fund it.

My pet topic.


Lefty virtue signallers are always charlatans, painting themselves as people of compassionate fibre in order to garner admiration and compassionate status, but that in fact have a capacity to hoard and retain wealth that is no different to anyone else.


I could give masses of examples, but a couple will have to do;


1) High profile 'elbow patch' Oxbridge academics that do the 'capitalism is broken' lecture circuits.


The way they dress and talk is all designed to cultivate the 'money is of little interest' lefty right-on dusty academic beloved of bovine QT audiences and middle class privileged warriors.


And yet, they charge hefty speaking fees, typically have a lucrative writing career, and amass great sums in their Oxbridge pensions which are largely invested in the very thing they claim to detest - the capital markets / equities, thus diverting worker efforts into their gold plated pensions


They talk of the need to bring about a meritocracy, to end the middle class stranglehold on societies best positions, and yet they do not move over for a working class person, they do in fact go out their way to ensure their own offspring are further privileged by way of networking and access, thus necessarily crowding out working class under privileged kids


2) Russell Brand - endlessly crying for the poor and yet CHOOSING to both charge and then retain huge appearance fees (£50k per show).
He's not a fat cat somehow..........


Do we think he goes out f his way to ensure his stage cleaners get a really nice days pay? I bet it wouldn't cross his mind.


Just another charlatan crowd pleaser




EVERY LEFTY SAYS THAT WOULD HAPPILY PAY MORE TAX. Yet when I interview them in a business capacity every one I've ever met pays only the tax they have to, not a penny more. Indeed they engage Accountants to ensure no more is paid than is absolutely necessary.




3) WPP head, Martin Sorrel - was the guest on BBC Desert Island Disks. At the time a Labour supporter.


Very curiously he kept saying 'oh I've never been interested in money'




This is the Man who became renowned for paying himself tens of millions in some years.


Classic baseless virtue signalling.


Why would anyone that has no interest in money not take a modest income and insist the rest was given to staff?

N1AK

Conrad wrote: »

EVERY LEFTY SAYS THAT WOULD HAPPILY PAY MORE TAX. Yet when I interview them in a business capacity every one I've ever met pays only the tax they have to, not a penny more. Indeed they engage Accountants to ensure no more is paid than is absolutely necessary.

There is a rather simplistic mindset that sees it as contradictory to support higher taxation while not choosing to pay higher tax than under the current system; I've never been able to decide if it is built upon a failure of critical thinking or a basic dislike for those of that sentiment.

One of the reasons I believe in higher taxation than many people is that I believe that we all benefit from the things that taxation pays for, even if we only benefit from some things indirectly. I do not, however, have any inclination to help other higher earners by paying more tax when they don't have to when they will share equally in the benefits. I am perfectly comfortable with making the best financial decisions within the current tax framework, regardless of whether I think the framework should be changed.

I guess if I did see it as hypocritical I would see it as no more hypocritical than people who believe government taxes should be lower while actively taking advantage of the services the current level of taxation funds.

Dird

cells wrote: »

its £748 billion in spending = about £11,500 per capita or more than a million quid if you live to be 87 years old

The numbers are skewed by leeches though. £11.5k might be average but someone else is taking £26k income support + £12k CTC + disability benefits + free housing blah blah

N1AK

Dird wrote: »

The numbers are skewed by leeches though. £11.5k might be average but someone else is taking £26k income support + £12k CTC + disability benefits + free housing blah blah

Only for a rather 'odd' definition of leeches, and it's a rather redundant point: We vote for our government, it decides what to spend and on who, thus you can't arbitrarily cut back the figure for tax neutrality. In short, 80%+ of society are leeches and most people complaining about leeches are net takers who like to delude themselves that they aren't.

Mistermeaner

does anyone have data on the tax paid by whom; e.g. how many people are paying no tax, low rate, high rate, even higher rate etc

I'm sure I saw something somewhere about 5% odd of the population paying something like 90% of the taxes

Dird

N1AK wrote: »

Only for a rather 'odd' definition of leeches, and it's a rather redundant point: We vote for our government, it decides what to spend and on who, thus you can't arbitrarily cut back the figure for tax neutrality. In short, 80%+ of society are leeches and most people complaining about leeches are net takers who like to delude themselves that they aren't.

My point is an £11k average doesn't mean people are net takers unless you show where the £11k is going.
No hospital in 15 years, no kids to win the CTC rebate, no income/disability/whatever support

Conrad

N1AK wrote: »

There is a rather simplistic mindset that sees it as contradictory to support higher taxation while not choosing to pay higher tax than under the current system; I've never been able to decide if it is built upon a failure of critical thinking or a basic dislike for those of that sentiment.

One of the reasons I believe in higher taxation than many people is that I believe that we all benefit from the things that taxation pays for, even if we only benefit from some things indirectly. I do not, however, have any inclination to help other higher earners by paying more tax when they don't have to when they will share equally in the benefits. I am perfectly comfortable with making the best financial decisions within the current tax framework, regardless of whether I think the framework should be changed.

I guess if I did see it as hypocritical I would see it as no more hypocritical than people who believe government taxes should be lower while actively taking advantage of the services the current level of taxation funds.

'I do not, however, have any inclination to help other higher earners by paying more tax when they don't have to when they will share equally in the benefits'.


Why, given your sincerely held compassionate world view would you not want to lead by example, do the right thing regardless of what others do? Ghandi said 'be the change you want' he did not say 'talk about stuff and whinge'


Ken Livingston set up a Ltd Company through which he funnelled his considerable self employed income. He's always said he'd love to see higher taxes, so why go out of his way to actively set-up a vehicle designed to minimise his tax? Why not just declare all that extra income on his tax return and pay the most amount of tax that could be due?


I saw a forum member in favour of higher taxes the other day moaning her car was not in the lowest tax band. Surely she is more than happy contributing higher taxes, or once again is all about virtue signalling with no follow through?


At least a Tory does what it says on the tin.