Work or be homeless!

Generali

lynzpower wrote: »

Its a very unusual day when I disagree with you my love but do you REALLY think



I would look at the repo figures, the people drowning in debt, inflationary pressures etc etc that suggest the total opposite of what you suggest. Most people cannot even manage to support themselves WHILE THEY ARE FULLY WORKING, let alone when they are not.

People cannot - or choose not- for whatever reason to stay at break even.

Most people cannot provide for themselves throughout thier working life and beyond. I suggest that maternity benefits, tax credits, JSA, incapacity and DLA ( ie ALL the means tested bens) show that there IS a safety net there for people who need it when they need it (operational deficiencies ignored for the sake of clarity!) Im sure most of us at some point in our lives will have to rely on some sort of benefit, OR rely on family/ partners/ freinds/ savings to see them through. Indeed it was the fact that people could not provide for themselves throughout life that created the welfare state in the first place! It was not uncommon for the elderly and disabled to be begging on the streets, they were not self insuring then were they!

Thank you for your very kind words. Even Mrs Generali won't complain about a little cuddle!

Most people disagree with my politics. I've been asked by a few people to be a politician but it's no use if people won't vote for me.

If people can't help themselves then I'm happy to support them. If people make lousy decisions then I don't see why it's down to me to pay for that. Short-term benefits are fine. People living their lives subsidised by others is wrong, IMO.

There's an idea called moral hazard;that is that if you bail people out then they won't take responsibilty for themselves. It strikes me that at present a person can refuse to take responsibilty for their actions because they'll still have a place to live in and food on the table no matter what they do.

My feeling is that people can't support themselves whilst working because they pay huge amounts of tax. In the early 90s I worked as a chef/barman in London netting £103pw. I paid about 20% of my income in NI and PAYE and on top had to find VAT, direct taxes, the extra cost of food caused by the CAP and council tax. Being very poor coloured my views of the way that Socialists try to keep people indebted to the state.

SquatNow

Generali wrote: »

My feeling is that people can't support themselves whilst working because they pay huge amounts of tax. In the early 90s I worked as a chef/barman in London netting £103pw. I paid about 20% of my income in NI and PAYE and on top had to find VAT, direct taxes, the extra cost of food caused by the CAP and council tax. Being very poor coloured my views of the way that Socialists try to keep people indebted to the state.

Completely the wrong problem.

People can't afford to support themselves and put money away for retirement while paying 40% of their income just to have a roof over their head.

The problem is the cost of housing, not that tax.

lynzpower

I agree SN.

It used to be that poverty was measured by more than one third of income paying for housing/overheads is clearly poverty ( was this decided with the gov & joseph rowntree foundation? cant remember)

Now, Id say MOST of us pay well over a third, a half is normal tro pay on rent& bills/ mortgage.

Phoenixx73

After reading the countless posts about ciggie smoking, special brew drinking dole scroungers I wonder just how many people hav taken into account that the benefits system is partially self funding just on taxation of those two commodities alone?

How much of the average benefit payment made to the stereotype people you mentioned is subsequently reclaimed by the government in VAT, ciggie tax, alcohol tax, fuel tax ect?

Now not having figures in front of me I would guess that about 30-40% of the disposable income after rent is paid goes back into the governments coffers (as well as council tax into the local governments funds)

Generali

SquatNow wrote: »

Completely the wrong problem.

People can't afford to support themselves and put money away for retirement while paying 40% of their income just to have a roof over their head.

The problem is the cost of housing, not that tax.

You're right to say that the cost of housing is also a problem. You wrong, IMO, to say that taxation isn't a problem. Most working people have far more tax confiscated from them in their lives than they will pay in housing costs.

Gorgeous_George

Phoenixx73 wrote: »

Now not having figures in front of me I would guess that about 30-40% of the disposable income after rent is paid goes back into the governments coffers (as well as council tax into the local governments funds)

The %age is much greater for the less well off. It (tax) is also more optional the more you earn.

Most cigarettes are bought on the black market.

GG

Phoenixx73

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

The %age is much greater for the less well off. It (tax) is also more optional the more you earn.

Most cigarettes are bought on the black market.

GG

IF you know where to get them from. and IF you have lungs of iorn. (have you ever tried smoking foreign ciggies? you might just as well smoke 20 B&H all at once!

Gorgeous_George

Phoenixx73 wrote: »

IF you know where to get them from. and IF you have lungs of iorn. (have you ever tried smoking foreign ciggies? you might just as well smoke 20 B&H all at once!

I know where to get them from and I have never smoked. I tried one when I was 15 and thought it was disgusting - if I'd done the same with women and beer I'd be a millionaire by now.

GG

Phoenixx73

lol especially the women!

*cowers from the 50 approaching brick laden handbags*

SquatNow

Generali wrote: »

You're right to say that the cost of housing is also a problem. You wrong, IMO, to say that taxation isn't a problem. Most working people have far more tax confiscated from them in their lives than they will pay in housing costs.

What you need to understand is that 95% of the cost of EVERYTHING you buy is the cost of land.

It's the cost of buying a house for all the people who make the stuff you buy in the shops, and the cost of land for all the people who make the stuff they buy, and the cost of land for all the people who make the stuff they buy, and the cost of land for all the people who make the stuff they buy, and the cost of land for all the people who make the stuff they buy, and the cost of land for all the people who make the stuff they buy, and the cost of land for all the people who make the stuff they buy, and the cost of land for all the people who make the stuff they buy... shall I go on?

Yes tax is an issue, in that tax should be levied entirely and solely on land value... and the current tax system CAUSES the problems of high land prices.

Phoenixx73 wrote: »

After reading the countless posts about ciggie smoking, special brew drinking dole scroungers I wonder just how many people hav taken into account that the benefits system is partially self funding just on taxation of those two commodities alone?

How much of the average benefit payment made to the stereotype people you mentioned is subsequently reclaimed by the government in VAT, ciggie tax, alcohol tax, fuel tax ect?

Now not having figures in front of me I would guess that about 30-40% of the disposable income after rent is paid goes back into the governments coffers (as well as council tax into the local governments funds)

I love it when people make this argument, it's so funny. As a comparison, if I steal £1m from the taxpayer, say, by benefit fraud, it doesn't matter as long as I spend it on beer and cigs, as the government gets most of the money back anyway. So surely most benefit fraudsters should be let off, or at least be able to tax deduct their theft, that is, only pay back the money, less the tax they paid with it.

What about if I steal £1m and use it to pay an outstanding income tax bill... surely the taxpayer is no worse off?