# Income taxes should be raised ?



## trampie (Dec 7, 2011)

Public sector worker pensions should be protected, the government should run the same pensions for private sector workers and they should get the same deal, old age pensions need to raise, unemployment and sickness benefits need to raise as does the minimum wage, to pay for this i would think income tax would need to go up, will raising the basic rate of tax from 20% to 25% the higher rate from 40% to 50% and the additional rate from 50% to 75% cover it ?

The balance between the haves and the have nots in this country needs to be rebalanced.


----------



## Ae589 (Dec 7, 2011)

Why income tax specifically?  I think income tax is the worst of all taxes - a tax on effort.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 7, 2011)

Ae589 said:


> Why income tax specifically? I think income tax is the worst of all taxes - a tax on effort.



lol.  really?


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 7, 2011)

trampie said:


> Public sector worker pensions should be protected, the government should run the same pensions for private sector workers and they should get the same deal, old age pensions need to raise, unemployment and sickness benefits need to raise as does the minimum wage, to pay for this i would think income tax would need to go up, will raising the basic rate of tax from 20% to 25% the higher rate from 40% to 50% and the additional rate from 50% to 75% cover it ?
> 
> The balance between the haves and the have nots in this country needs to be rebalanced.



I work in the private sector yet have a defined benefit pension.  So do many others.


----------



## killer b (Dec 7, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> lol. really?


it's well known that well paid people just try harder than badly paid people. nothing else to it. you idle cunt.


----------



## trampie (Dec 7, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> I work in the private sector yet have a defined benefit pension. So do many others.


Cameron has just said at the despatch box something along the lines of, that a primary school teacher earning £32,000 a year can expect a £20,000 a year pension under his plan and that a private sector worker would have to contribute a massive 38% of his or her entire salary to get the equivalent pension and still pay tax to contribute to public sector workers pension, Cameron is using the unfairness of pensions between different groups of workers as a reason not to give into the public sector workers strike, i think the public sector workers should get the deal they are seeking and the private sector workers should get an equivalent deal and if that means higher taxes so be it.

PS im not interested if Camerons stats are this, that or the other, the bottomline is one group gets a better deal than another group, both groups should have the same deal a deal at least equivalent to what the public sector workers want.


----------



## pengaleng (Dec 7, 2011)

I just read your username as 'creampie'  so from now on, that's what I'm gonna call you.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 7, 2011)

The simple way is to mandate that private sector must provide defined benefit pension schemes.  Job done really.  You're way overcomplicating things (plus mixing up who is responsible for funding non state pension schemes)


----------



## Pinette (Dec 7, 2011)

trampie said:


> Cameron has just said at the despatch box something along the lines of, that a primary school teacher earning £32,000 a year can expect a £20,000 a year pension under his plan and that a private sector worker would have to contribute a massive 38% of his or her entire salary to get the equivalent pension and still pay tax to contribute to public sector workers pension, Cameron is using the unfairness of pensions between different groups of workers as a reason not to give into the public sector workers strike, i think the public sector workers should get the deal they are seeking and the private sector workers should get an equivalent deal and if that means higher taxes so be it.
> 
> PS im not interested if Camerons stats are this, that or the other, the bottomline is one group gets a better deal than another group, both groups should have the same deal a deal at least equivalent to what the public sector workers want.


I'm having a little deja-vu moment here, poster.  You posted a similar thread the other day I think, albeit couched a little bit differently.  Having said that, I may be wrong. Am feeling quite ill right now and could be hallucinating.


----------



## trampie (Dec 7, 2011)

Pinette said:


> I'm having a little deja-vu moment here, poster. You posted a similar thread the other day I think, albeit couched a little bit differently. Having said that, I may be wrong. Am feeling quite ill right now and could be hallucinating.


Yes i did post something similar but wanted to put up a poll to see if posters on this site would be prepared to pay more tax to give the poor a better living and the working man and woman a decent pension, lots of people on this site like to portray themselves as left wing....hmm


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 7, 2011)

Ae589 said:


> Why income tax specifically? I think income tax is the worst of all taxes - a tax on effort.



Yes, income is invariably proportional to effort.

Apart from when it's not, which is always.


----------



## trampie (Dec 7, 2011)

Ae589 said:


> Why income tax specifically? I think income tax is the worst of all taxes - a tax on effort.


Because income tax is a tax on earnings to raise VAT for instance is a tax on the poor, pensioners and the unemployed pay VAT.


----------



## Termite Man (Dec 7, 2011)

I can only just afford to live now as it is, a rise in income tax would fuck me over big time.


----------



## Termite Man (Dec 7, 2011)

If you suggested a rise in the threshold for when you start paying tax as well then you might be getting somewhere.


----------



## Pinette (Dec 7, 2011)

trampie said:


> Because income tax is a tax on earnings to raise VAT for instance is a tax on the poor, pensioners and the unemployed pay VAT.


I honestly think a little bit of punctuation wouldn't come amiss trampie.  Just to make it easier for us pensioners to understand what the fuck you're going on about this time!


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 7, 2011)

How much extra tax would be raised by increasing the minimum wage? Any studies done? On the one hand it would boost revenues from income tax which would be funded by corporations, yet that would eat into their profits so possibly decreasing revenues from corporate tax. What would the balance be (assuming tax %s stayed the same and corporate tax wasn't increased)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 7, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> How much extra tax would be raised by increasing the minimum wage? Any studies done? On the one hand it would boost revenues from income tax which would be funded by corporations, yet that would eat into their profits so possibly decreasing revenues from corporate tax. What would the balance be (assuming tax %s stayed the same and corporate tax wasn't increased)



Would reduce the amount spent on tax credits etc as well. It's absurd that there are people working full time who have to be subsidised by the government to get by. If you want staff then you should have to pay them a wage they can live on.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 7, 2011)

There should be a universal state pension that provides a "decent" (as defined by an elected one off Pensions Assembly and then linked to RPI)  standard of living to all over the age of 60.

It should be funded from general taxation, including a steep rise in corporation tax that would cover the savings made by employers no longer needing to fund pension schemes of any type.

Also increase the income tax threshold to 10k, introduce new 50, 60, and 70% tax rates, cut VAT on most stuff to 10% to boost sales

etc, etc.


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 7, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> introduce new 50, 60, and 70% tax rates


Only problem with that is that the people who would be affected by it either make the laws or pay for people to make the laws!


----------



## Quartz (Dec 7, 2011)

trampie said:


> Yes i did post something similar but wanted to put up a poll to see if posters on this site would be prepared to pay more tax to give the poor a better living and the working man and woman a decent pension, lots of people on this site like to portray themselves as left wing....hmm



Being poor, I want to pay less tax so I can put away more for my retirement. Raising the tax threshold does that admirably; raising the income tax rate doesn't. Now if you were to propose removing the cap on National Insurance, I would most certainly go along with that. 





			
				Spanky Longhorn said:
			
		

> There should be a universal state pension that provides a "decent" (as defined by an elected one off Pensions Assembly and then linked to RPI) standard of living to all over the age of 60.


 
Make that 70, which should be the retirement age in these days of improved health. 60 would be very difficult to afford with expected lifespans of 85-90 as Greece is finding out. How can you put away enough to provide for 30 years when you only work for 40?


----------



## Quartz (Dec 7, 2011)

Dupe deleted


----------



## Quartz (Dec 7, 2011)

Dupe deleted


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 7, 2011)

Quartz said:


> Make that 70, which should be the retirement age in these days of improved health.


Improved for which generation!?


----------



## agricola (Dec 7, 2011)

There really should be no tax rises for anyone until the Government sorts out what it is spending our money on.  Take public sector pensions as an example - most of the savings they want could be delivered simply by reducing the fees paid to the firms that administer them, as this Torygraph (!) article demonstrates.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 7, 2011)

Quartz said:


> Dupe deleted


You're still here unfortunately


----------



## southside (Dec 7, 2011)

trampie said:


> Public sector worker pensions should be protected, the government should run the same pensions for private sector workers and they should get the same deal, old age pensions need to raise, unemployment and sickness benefits need to raise as does the minimum wage, to pay for this i would think income tax would need to go up, will raising the basic rate of tax from 20% to 25% the higher rate from 40% to 50% and the additional rate from 50% to 75% cover it ?
> 
> The balance between the haves and the have nots in this country needs to be rebalanced.



Fuck your ideas on tax rebalancing.

I work hard and pay most of my money out on bills and the little I do have left goes on my family.

You sound like a person on the chat or an embittered public sector something for fuckall merchant.

Raise tax you say

Fuck right off with that idea, I pay enough to this cunt of a govt so jack do fuck all can live like lord shit.

Bollocks to that idea.

Next


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2011)

A noose?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2011)

You know jack very well do you then? Where do he live?


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 7, 2011)

southside said:


> Fuck your ideas on tax rebalancing.
> 
> I work hard and pay most of my money out on bills and the little I do have left goes on my family.
> 
> ...


----------



## southside (Dec 7, 2011)

Look at it like this, you've been trampled under foot for far too long and hoodwinked by cunts.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2011)

southside said:


> Look at it like this, you've been trampled under foot for far too long and hoodwinked by cunts.


Take a knee in the 3rd champ.


----------



## southside (Dec 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Take a knee in the 3rd champ.



I dont disagree that changes need to be made at the top end but leave the 90% alone.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Dec 8, 2011)

I'd reform council tax first:
1) Centralise it, abandon the idea that it's meant to be proportionate to services rendered, and allocate funds to councils on a funding formula based on need .
2) Make the owners of abandoned buildings pay rates - to penalise speculation.
3) Lift the upper limit on council tax to end the ridiculous situation where people with mansions are paying the same as people in semis.


----------



## LiamO (Dec 8, 2011)

Why not, instead of raising tax _rates_ to 'punitive' percentages, just ensure that the richest members of society (and the most profiotable companies) actually pay some tax at all? The problem AFAICS is that they currently, and historically, pay hardly any,


----------



## trampie (Dec 8, 2011)

southside said:


> I work hard and pay most of my money out on bills and the little I do have left goes on my family.


So you are screwed then ?, you spend all your coin now so what are you going to do to survive in retirement ?, if people contributed a bit more via tax when they are working then they could get a bit more in retirement, instead at this rate lots of people will be in poverty in retirement.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 8, 2011)

trampie said:


> So you are screwed then ?, you spend all your coin now so what are you going to do to survive in retirement ?, if people contributed a bit more when they are working then they could get a bit more in retirement, instead at this rate lots of people will be in poverty in retirement.



All very well but a lot of people simply cannot afford to put any money away. It infuriates me when ministers and financial advisers constantly tell us in the media how we need to save more. It doesnt help if you're struggling with the day to day.


----------



## trampie (Dec 8, 2011)

stephj said:


> All very well but a lot of people simply cannot afford to put any money away. It infuriates me when ministers and financial advisers constantly tell us in the media how we need to save more. It doesnt help if you're struggling with the day to day.


What has happened on this thread is exactly what i thought would happen, most of the posts and the poll going in favour of no tax rises only Tory parties are going to win any elections for donkeys years to come in the UK whether it be the Conservatives, New Labour or the Lib-Dems, voters particularly voters in England [and its the voters in England that are almost certain to decide any election in the UK anyway] will continue to vote on mass for parties that promise tax cuts, the voters cant see the wood for the trees, parties that cut taxes are saying to the people, we will put more money in your pockets but if you want good health care or good education or good public services or good benefits and pensions then you pay for it yourselves, if you become ill or havent got a job then God help you, on the other hand if people paid more tax then they would have more protection and good free health and education etc from cradle to grave.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 8, 2011)

You offered a false choice bound up with a dubious premise.  Pay more income tax or the private sector has shite pensions.

You're a moron if you can't see why your op got the responses it did.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2011)

I think it's more a testament to your ability to rally people against you than anything else trampie.


----------



## Quartz (Dec 8, 2011)

Wolveryeti said:


> I'd reform council tax first:



Excellent idea



> 1) Centralise it, abandon the idea that it's meant to be proportionate to services rendered, and allocate funds to councils on a funding formula based on need .



Very bad idea. Local accountability and all that. If anything, I'd go the other way. Subsidiarity. Have central government pay for national services like major roads (motorways and dual carriageways), hospitals, and the like - stuff a local council could not possibly afford - and have local government (i.e. local taxpayers) fund the rest. Let them raise funding how they wish. And if the electorate don't like it, they can vote them out at the next election.


----------



## The Octagon (Dec 8, 2011)

trampie said:


> What has happened on this thread is exactly what i thought would happen, most of the posts and the poll going in favour of no tax rises only Tory parties are going to win any elections for donkeys years to come in the UK whether it be the Conservatives, New Labour or the Lib-Dems, voters *particularly voters in England* [and its the voters in England that are almost certain to decide any election in the UK anyway] will continue to vote on mass for parties that promise tax cuts, the voters cant see the wood for the trees, parties that cut taxes are saying to the people, we will put more money in your pockets but if you want good health care or good education or good public services or good benefits and pensions then you pay for it yourselves, if you become ill or havent got a job then God help you, on the other hand if people paid more tax then they would have more protection and good free health and education etc from cradle to grave.



DING DING! It's Trampie Bingo everyone, come and play!

In this game, it took 37 posts, which is an unusually long time, but don't worry, another (probably shorter) game will surely follow....


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 8, 2011)

your faith in electoral politics is touching.

@quartz


----------



## trampie (Dec 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I think it's more a testament to your ability to rally people against you than anything else trampie.


The first part may or may not be the case in this thread, but it just underlines to me that people in England in particular are right wingers [generalising of course] and the chances of having a party in charge that is slightly on the left or even in the middle is not going to happen in the UK for donkeys years [not until there are more disadvantaged than advantaged, the weight of the low paid, people on benefits. pensioners and unemployed out weighing the low tax paying reasonably well off people in work}, infact Scotland and Wales may even have broken away from England before that happens, although i dont think the Celts will breakaway at the first time of asking it will be down the line if the UK continues on this right wing policy track.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2011)

trampie said:


> The first part may or may not be the case in this thread, but it just underlines to me that people in England in particular are right wingers [generalising of course] and the changes of having a party in charge that is slightly on the left or even in the middle is not going to happen in the UK for donkeys years [not until there are more disadvantaged than advantaged, the weight of the low paid, people on benefits. pensioners and unemployed out weighing the low tax paying reasonably well off people in work}, infact Scotland and Wales may even have broken away from England before that happens, although i dont think the Celts will breakaway at the first time of asking it will be down the line if the UK continues on this right wing policy track.


341 votes for socialists across the whole of Wales last time round.  Well done!


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 8, 2011)

he's banging that drum again.


----------



## trampie (Dec 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 341 votes for socialists across the whole of Wales last time round. Well done!


The SNP and Plaid are social justice parties they are on the left, in Wales Welsh Labour is far more to the left than right wing New Labour in Westminster, i dont know about Scottish Labour but wouldnt be surprised if that was the same as Welsh Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2011)

trampie said:


> The SNP and Plaid are social justice parties they are on the left, in Wales Welsh Labour is far more to the left than right wing New Labour in Westminster, i dont know about Scottish Labour but wouldnt be surprised if that was the same as Welsh Labour.


No they're not and no they're not.


----------



## pogofish (Dec 8, 2011)

trampie said:


> Public sector worker pensions should be protected, the government should run the same pensions for private sector workers and they should get the same deal, old age pensions need to raise, unemployment and sickness benefits need to raise as does the minimum wage, to pay for this i would think income tax would need to go up, will raising the basic rate of tax from 20% to 25% the higher rate from 40% to 50% and the additional rate from 50% to 75% cover it ?
> 
> The balance between the haves and the have nots in this country needs to be rebalanced.



Why not get rid of tax as we currently know it altogether and hold the private sector to all their bullshit about "creating wealth for everyone" and the like?

Let them actually do it for all of us!


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 8, 2011)

Why don't you just start a thread called 'all english people are right wing, I defy you to prove otherwise' and allow the discussion to take place in it rather than starting multiple threads which always end up with you basically arguing that contention. Except that one about _international financiers _they always end up at the same damn point by page 3


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Why don't you just start a thread called 'all english people are right wing, I defy you to prove otherwise' and allow the discussion to take place in it rather than starting multiple threads which always end up with you basically arguing that contention. Except that one about _international financiers _they always end up at the same damn point by page 3


Has he been doing his jewish stuff again as well?


----------



## Quartz (Dec 8, 2011)

If the Tories want to ensure their next election, all they'd have to do is stop the Scottish subsidy (approx £1000 per person IIRC) shortly before the next election.  They're not going to win any seats in Scotland, so why should they care about Scottish voters?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Has he been doing his jewish stuff again as well?


 
see his compound interest thread


----------



## Quartz (Dec 8, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> your faith in electoral politics is touching.



Maybe, but it can't be worse than the shower we have at Westminster. And worse, the out-of-touch mandarins in Whitehall.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2011)

Quartz said:


> Maybe, but it can't be worse than the shower we have at Westminster. And worse, the out-of-touch mandarins in Whitehall.


What, the exact same as we have now can't be worse than what we have now?


----------



## Quartz (Dec 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What, the exact same as we have now can't be worse than what we have now?



More taxes devolved to local government, I mean. Let local governments raise local taxes howsoever they wish. Maybe they'll up the business rate. Maybe they'll implement road charging. It'll be up to them. But the important thing is that they'll be directly accountable for it, rather than having their hands tied by Whitehall and Westminster.


----------



## trampie (Dec 8, 2011)

They say the truth hurts, left wing board my hairy arse, most people on here wouldnt know a left wing policy if it hit them between the eyes, people in general are all me me me, Margret Thatcher appealed to peoples greed selling off the countries nationalised industries and housing stock and cutting income tax, Labour knew they couldnt beat her so they became New Labour and joined her in the politics of greed the politics of survival of the fittest, the country and this board has the government it wants and deserves, there is nothing that can be done to save Blighty if posters on a so called left wing board wont pay higher taxes to get better benefits and look after the needy in society, the battle for Middle England has been won by the Tories, Scotland and Wales down the line who knows but the battle to have a social justice party or a socialist party in England is lost for a very long time.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 8, 2011)

fail


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 8, 2011)

Ae589 said:


> Why income tax specifically? I think income tax is the worst of all taxes - a tax on effort.



If that were the case any salary would be commensurate to effort. They're not. 

It's a tax on *earnings*, whether those earnings are commensurate with effort or not


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 8, 2011)

trampie said:


> They say the truth hurts, left wing board my hairy arse, most people on here wouldnt know a left wing policy if it hit them between the eyes, people in general are all me me me, Margret Thatcher appealed to peoples greed selling off the countries nationalised industries and housing stock and cutting income tax, Labour knew they couldnt beat her so they became New Labour and joined her in the politics of greed the politics of survival of the fittest, the country and this board has the government it wants and deserves, there is nothing that can be done to save Blighty if posters on a so called left wing board wont pay higher taxes to get better benefits and look after the needy in society, the battle for Middle England has been won by the Tories, Scotland and Wales down the line who knows but the battle to have a social justice party or a socialist party in England is lost for a very long time.



.......


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 8, 2011)

Termite Man said:


> I can only just afford to live now as it is, a rise in income tax would fuck me over big time.



Yeah, but you spend a lot of your money on hookers, cocaine and fine wine, and then waste the rest. You could easily cut back on the waste.


----------



## JimW (Dec 8, 2011)

trampie said:


> They say the truth hurts, left wing board my hairy arse, most people on here wouldnt know a left wing policy if it hit them between the eyes, people in general are all me me me, Margret Thatcher appealed to peoples greed selling off the countries nationalised industries and housing stock and cutting income tax, Labour knew they couldnt beat her so they became New Labour and joined her in the politics of greed the politics of survival of the fittest, the country and this board has the government it wants and deserves, there is nothing that can be done to save Blighty if posters on a so called left wing board wont pay higher taxes to get better benefits and look after the needy in society, the battle for Middle England has been won by the Tories, Scotland and Wales down the line who knows but the battle to have a social justice party or a socialist party in England is lost for a very long time.


So your vision of 'the left' is muscular lib-demmery with a bit of nationalist bigotry to split the working class chucked in? Top work.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 8, 2011)

Termite Man said:


> If you suggested a rise in the threshold for when you start paying tax as well then you might be getting somewhere.



I've always thought that the tax-paying threshold should start at around 50 or even 60 percent of the national "average" wage, because it's a sure as shit that in many cases someone earning £14,000-£17,000 per annum isn't rolling in fucking clover, especially if you live in a city, or in a rural area with barely any public transport infrastructure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 8, 2011)

Pinette said:


> I honestly think a little bit of punctuation wouldn't come amiss trampie. Just to make it easier for us pensioners to understand what the fuck you're going on about this time!



Shut it, grandma, with your old-fashioned sensibilities!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 8, 2011)

southside said:


> Look at it like this, you've been trampled under foot for far too long and hoodwinked by cunts.



Says the man with the pissflaps pulled firmly over his eyes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 8, 2011)

southside said:


> I dont disagree that changes need to be made at the top end but leave the 90% alone.



That's an absurd position to take. We shouldn't be "left alone", "the system" should be re-balanced so that the burden on each individual is commensurate to their ability to pay.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 8, 2011)

the dragon speaks with two tongues as well you know, creampie


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 8, 2011)

The entire income tax system needs rectification. The tax payment threshold needs to be raised to take into account the disparity between below-average wages and actual "costs of living", and a progressive (as the word applies to taxation) income tax system needs to be instituted, taking into account the usual work-arounds that the better off commonly use to minimise their liabilities, and penalising those that use/try to use them.


----------



## trampie (Dec 8, 2011)

southside said:


> I dont disagree that changes need to be made at the top end but leave the 90% alone.


Me me me, there is no hope with people like you around, no hope at all.


----------



## trevhagl (Dec 8, 2011)

Ae589 said:


> Why income tax specifically? I think income tax is the worst of all taxes - a tax on effort.



i bet the top bankers were working their tits off before the crisis


----------



## trevhagl (Dec 8, 2011)

if you actually made the top earners JUST PAY THE TAX THEY SHOULD BE PAYING it would wipe out the entire defecit within a couple of years


----------



## trevhagl (Dec 8, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yes, income is invariably proportional to effort.
> 
> Apart from when it's not, which is always.



indeed, does Philip Green work 100 times as hard as his staff in his shops?


----------



## ExtraRefined (Dec 8, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> indeed, does Philip Green work 100 times as hard as his staff in his shops?



The correct question is "if you hired someone who'd work for £40k as CEO, would it lose the company more money than it saved?"


----------



## no-no (Dec 8, 2011)

Income tax needs to be worked out on a sliding scale with the richest paying more (up to 90% if needs be, whatever it takes to provide a decent standard of living,health and education for us all) and the poorest paying less or nothing.

If it works out that I need to pay more than so be it. All that tax may well be stolen or squandered but that's a different argument.

Is someone going to start banging on about the rich leaving the country now?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 8, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> The correct question is "if you hired someone who'd work for £40k as CEO, would it lose the company more money than it saved?"



No, that's a nonsense question based on the conflation of cost and value, _du arsch_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 8, 2011)

no-no said:


> Income tax needs to be worked out on a sliding scale with the richest paying more (up to 90% if needs be, whatever it takes to provide a decent standard of living,health and education for us all) and the poorest paying less or nothing.



As I said above, progressive taxation.



> If it works out that I need to pay more than so be it. All that tax may well be stolen or squandered but that's a different argument.



Yep, that's an almost purely political argument, IMO.



> Is someone going to start banging on about the rich leaving the country now?



I will.

Why oh fucking why won't these rich individuals and companies who whine on, threatening to leave the country, fucking well do so?


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> As I said above, progressive taxation.



^^^ This. Times a lot.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 8, 2011)

As an aside, I've recently heard the argument that a tax on profits and a tax on high incomes is essentially the same thing and there's no particular reason to pick one over the other - you're just taking the money out at different points in the process. I suspected the argument was wrong but don't know enough about the tax system to know why - anyone got any thoughts?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 8, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> The correct question is "if you hired someone who'd work for £40k as CEO, would it lose the company more money than it saved?"


Would depend on who you hired, tbh. As the last few years have more than proved there are evidently quite a lot of incompetent, amoral, money-grubbing shitheads getting big salaries for abject failure.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 8, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> As an aside, I've recently heard the argument that a tax on profits and a tax on high incomes is essentially the same thing and there's no particular reason to pick one over the other - you're just taking the money out at different points in the process. I suspected the argument was wrong but don't know enough about the tax system to know why - anyone got any thoughts?


The different points in the process is quite important, isn't it? Profits, in theory, are there to be re-invested in the company (as well as pay dividends, bonuses etc.), income, being personal, comes after the stage in which the company re-invests it - and could only go into personal consumption, savings or personal investment.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 8, 2011)

if high tax regimes have a detrimental effect on investment and employment, presumably we could expect to see high tax countries with higher unemployment and lower productivity, right?


----------



## Termite Man (Dec 8, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> if high tax regimes have a detrimental effect on investment and employment, presumably we could expect to see high tax countries with higher unemployment and lower productivity, right?



If wages are low in those countries then there may be a benefit for the companies to still operate there.

Could there be an optimum balance between high tax and low wages (topped up by state support like a 'living wage' for every adult in the country) rather than a low tax/high wages/no state support system?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 8, 2011)

Termite Man said:


> If wages are low in those countries then there may be a benefit for the companies to still operate there.
> 
> Could there be an optimum balance between high tax and low wages (topped up by state support like a 'living wage' for every adult in the country) rather than a low tax/high wages/no state support system?


well it appears to me that neither high taxes nor high wages seem much of a deterrent to people making money. Within the EU the lowest unemployment is found in the Switzerland (2.9%), Norway (3.4%), Netherlands (4.2%), Austria (4.3%), Germany (5.8%), all of which have higher GDP per capita and a lower GINI coefficient (ie. they make more and their incomes are more equal) than in the UK with its significantly higher unemployment. Of those countries, only Switzerland has significantly lower levels of tax, whereas the other countries have fairly similar tax levels to the UK.

Meanwhile many other countries have low wages and low taxes (Poland, for instance) and have a higher level of unemployment than all of these countries.


----------



## Jazzz (Dec 8, 2011)

We should stop paying income tax. What the fuck are we doing, paying tax so a criminal organisation can go murder another set of Arabs with it? It is the duty of the responsible man and woman to cease to fund this awful corruption.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 8, 2011)

Jazzz said:


> We should stop paying income tax. What the fuck are we doing, paying tax so a criminal organisation can go murder another set of Arabs with it? It is the duty of the responsible man and woman to cease to fund this awful corruption.



Why doesn't it surprise me that you're advocating being a parasite and a scrounger.


----------



## junglevip (Dec 8, 2011)

killer b said:


> it's well known that well paid people just try harder than badly paid people. nothing else to it. you idle cunt.



Bullshit


----------



## Jazzz (Dec 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Why doesn't it surprise me that you're advocating being a parasite and a scrounger.


I advocate no such thing, you are confused.

Your response shows how deep your programming is.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 8, 2011)

Jazzz said:


> I advocated no such thing, you are confused.



Yes you did. "We should stop paying income tax".


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 8, 2011)

He was taking the piss btw jungle


----------



## killer b (Dec 8, 2011)

shh


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 8, 2011)

Jazzz said:


> Your response shows how deep your programming is.



fuck off


----------



## Jazzz (Dec 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Yes you did. "We should stop paying income tax".


We are in the realms of the complete non-sequitur, futher discussion is without point.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 8, 2011)

Jazzz said:


> We are in the realms of the complete non-sequitur, futher discussion is without point.



I take it then that you have found a way to levitate above the roads and pavements?


----------



## junglevip (Dec 8, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> He was taking the piss btw jungle



OOOoops! Sorry.  Thanks for letting me down gently


----------



## Jazzz (Dec 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> I take it then that you have found a way to levitate above the roads and pavements?


No, so what?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 8, 2011)

Jazzz said:


> No, so what?



I take it you don't ever go anywhere then.


----------



## Jazzz (Dec 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> I take it you don't ever go anywhere then.


Of course I do. I don't even post that much on urban75 these days. What planet of logic are you coming from?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 8, 2011)

Jazzz said:


> Of course I do. I don't even post that much on urban75 these days. What planet of logic are you coming from?



How do you think roads, pavements, streetlights, road cleaning etc is paid for?


----------



## Jazzz (Dec 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> How do you think roads, pavements, streetlights, road cleaning etc is paid for?



We are slaves, the system is built around our slave labour. The amazing thing is when the slaves think they need their chains otherwise it will all fall apart and it cannot be done any other way


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 8, 2011)

Jazzz said:


> We are slaves, the system is built around our slave labour. The amazing thing is when the slaves think they need their chains otherwise it will all fall apart and it cannot be done any other way



You didn't answer my question.


----------



## Pinette (Dec 8, 2011)

Jazzz said:


> We are in the realms of the complete non-sequitur, futher discussion is without point.


I couldn't agree more.  For some reason trampie's thread has succeeded in me finally realising what 'does my head in' means.  I've been kind of meeting myself coming back the other way ifykwim.


----------



## Jazzz (Dec 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> You didn't answer my question.


money doesn't clean streets, slave labour does. If you want to see the truth of this, just look at how much a street cleaner is paid and how hard they are worked.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 8, 2011)

Jazzz said:


> money doesn't clean streets, slave labour does. If you want to see the truth of this, just look at how much a street cleaner is paid and how hard they are worked.



You still haven't answered my question.


----------



## Jazzz (Dec 8, 2011)

Pinette said:


> I couldn't agree more. For some reason trampie's thread has succeeded in me finally realising what 'does my head in' means. I've been kind of meeting myself coming back the other way ifykwim.


ah, welcome to urban75. I have largely escaped


----------



## Jazzz (Dec 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> You still haven't answered my question.


well do you want to answer it? I am trying to help you as much as I can.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 8, 2011)

Jazzz said:


> well do you want to answer it?



My own question?  I'm sure you know the answer Jazzz, you just don't want to think about it, hence the deflection.


----------



## Jazzz (Dec 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> My own question? I'm sure you know the answer Jazzz, you just don't want to think about it, hence the deflection.


Well go on, tell me.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 8, 2011)

Jazzz said:


> Well go on, tell me.



Are you seriously telling me that you're so ignorant that you don't know how public services are funded?


----------



## Jazzz (Dec 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Are you seriously telling me that you're so ignorant that you don't know how public services are funded?


I tell you that my understanding of the debt slavery imposed upon by a largely criminal elite far exceeds yours. Now, do you wish to make a point?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 8, 2011)

Jazzz said:


> I tell you that my understanding of the debt slavery imposed upon by a largely criminal elite far exceeds yours. Now, do you wish to make a point?



I think I've made my point.


----------



## Jazzz (Dec 8, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> I think I've made my point.


I think I treated it with the disdain it deserved.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2011)

Jazzz said:


> We are slaves, the system is built around our slave labour. The amazing thing is when the slaves think they need their chains otherwise it will all fall apart and it cannot be done any other way



How very Icke-ite.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2011)

Jazzz said:


> I tell you that my understanding of the debt slavery imposed upon by a largely criminal elite far exceeds yours. Now, do you wish to make a point?


Capitalism is based on the very opposite of slavery.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> How very Icke-ite.


I've encountered a lot of this kind of stuff on the net recently, lots of these ideas attaching themselves to the right occupy movement. Ideas that are reminiscent of some early fascist propaganda.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 9, 2011)

Set me free from the bondage of the NHS and free schooling; the scales have fallen from my eyes at last I am a slave no longer.

Thank you Jazz - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Ae589 (Dec 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> If that were the case any salary would be commensurate to effort. They're not.
> 
> It's a tax on *earnings*, whether those earnings are commensurate with effort or not



It's still a tax on effort, whether you or I think it's proportionate or not.

Inheritance tax or land tax are taxes on no effort.


----------



## Ae589 (Dec 9, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> lol. really?



HAHA! YEAH! LOL!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2011)

Ae589 said:


> It's still a tax on effort, whether you or I think it's proportionate or not.



Only if your conception of effort doesn't encompass the idea of exertion.



> Inheritance tax or land tax are taxes on no effort.



Are they? They'r very obviously taxes on *someone's* effort.


----------



## southside (Dec 9, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> How do you think roads, pavements, streetlights, road cleaning etc is paid for?



You forgot to mention the scroungers, you have to include the scroungers ffs.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2011)

southside said:


> You forgot to mention the scroungers, you have to include the scroungers ffs.


What % is that then?


----------



## southside (Dec 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What % is that then?



The % that do fuck all because they are lazy or have fictional illnesses.

I'm not including the ones that chose to take worthless degrees, they show an aptitude for hard work, it's not their fault the economy's broke.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2011)

What %?


----------



## southside (Dec 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What %?



No one knows what % are scroungers.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2011)

southside said:


> The 1% that can afford it and maybe the other 9% in certain cases.


What % of what?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2011)

Are you saying 1% of benefit claimants are stopping the wheels of commerce turning?That they're holding the country to ransom?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 9, 2011)

southside said:


> You forgot to mention the scroungers, you have to include the scroungers ffs.



Oh yeah, I forgot about them.

MPs and the Royals get paid via taxes too.


----------



## southside (Dec 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What % of what?



Ignore that bit, I got side tracked reading about alien bases on the moon and soul catcher or some such.

That John Lear bloke is an interesting chap.


----------



## southside (Dec 9, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Oh yeah, I forgot about them.
> 
> MPs and the Royals get paid via taxes too.



They should all be killed IMO


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2011)

southside said:


> Ignore that bit, I got side tracked reading about alien bases on the moon and soul catcher or some such.
> 
> That John Lear bloke is an interesting bloke.


No,i'm not ignoring that bit. Why did you say what you said?


----------



## southside (Dec 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No,i'm not ignoring that bit. Why did you say what you said?



No I think the 1% who get the most money should be paying more to alleviate the burden on the less wealthy.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2011)

southside said:


> No I think the 1% who get the most money should be paying more to alleviate the burden on the less wealthy.


Integrate that then with your earlier posts. You know the ones.


----------



## southside (Dec 9, 2011)

I've said before I don't mind my tax going on unemployed people that's just a fraction of the amount I pay, the Tories always go for that one.
I think the tax system should be amended especially now low and middle income earners are having a really hard time.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2011)

southside said:


> I've said before I don't mind my tax going on unemployed people that's just a fraction of the amount I pay, the Tories always go for that one.
> I think the tax system should be amended especially now low and middle income earners are having a really hard time.


What % is this then?



> The % that do fuck all because they are lazy or have fictional illnesses.


----------



## southside (Dec 9, 2011)

So do you think it to be OK that some people screw the system?

It's a deffo waste of my taxes, but it really isn't an economic show stopper.

I'd like to pay 10% tax but keep national insurance as is.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2011)

southside said:


> So do you think it to be OK that some people screw the system?
> 
> It's a deffo waste of my taxes, but it really isn't an economic show stopper.
> 
> I'd like to pay 10% tax but keep national insurance as is.


I need to you to establish then quantify the screwing. Before your crap questions.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2011)

southside said:


> So do you think it to be OK that some people screw the system?
> 
> It's a deffo waste of my taxes, but it really isn't an economic show stopper.
> 
> I'd like to pay 10% tax but keep national insurance as is.


So why bring it up as your first response?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 9, 2011)

I think the fiddle of 'tax havens' and 'non doms' needs to be seriously addressed prior to pissing around with the tax system. I'm less interested in someone earning £100, 000 being taxed a few percent more than I am plutocrats draining the economy because their wife in Monaco 'owns' the business, presently.


----------



## southside (Dec 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I need to you to establish then quantify the screwing. Before your crap questions.



This country is like a great big pussy, just waiting to get fucked.

The welfare state and the system of social security is easily fiddled here, it's too open to fraud.

Low and middle income people are always on the back foot.

The rich do not pay their fair share of tax and poor people should be exempt.

Politicians are like the clergy and JLS, they're only in it for the money.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2011)

So, this then :




			
				mug said:
			
		

> The % that do fuck all because they are lazy or have fictional illnesses.



anything?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 9, 2011)

So the problem is the whole stinking system itself, not the tax levies?


----------



## southside (Dec 9, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> So the problem is the whole stinking system itself, not the tax levies?



Pretty much.


----------



## southside (Dec 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So, this then :
> 
> anything?



Pass.

That is the problem, what do you do about it.

The under under under class, as opposed to the bend me over class.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2011)

southside said:


> Pass.
> 
> That is the problem, what do you do about it.
> 
> The under under under class, as opposed to the bend me over class.


No, it's not the problem.It's not even starting to be becoming being the problem.


----------



## southside (Dec 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No, it's not the problem.It's not even starting to be becoming being the problem.



Society is fucked,

That's the problem.

I resent paying tax because in its current format it's keeping me poor.


----------



## southside (Dec 9, 2011)

VAT is a cunts trick.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2011)

Society is fine. Incoherent idiots like you being used to attack others -problem.


----------



## southside (Dec 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Society is fine. Incoherent idiots like you being used to attack others -problem.



Society is not fine, you are fucking mad if you think that.

Being used to attack others? explain.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2011)

Pretty simple:


> The % that do fuck all because they are lazy or have fictional illnesses.



this was your immediate response to the question of this thread.


----------



## southside (Dec 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Pretty simple:
> 
> this was your immediate response to the question of this thread.



I know a few of em, I'm out working and they go to the pub every day, fact.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2011)

southside said:


> I know a few of em, I'm out working and they go to the pub every day, fact.


And this is the crisis facing the country?


----------



## southside (Dec 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And this is the crisis facing the country?



Not really no.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2011)

southside said:


> No one knows what % are scroungers.



Odd then that the ONS publishes figures on the amount of quantified and on estimated fraud with reference to benefits. Where do you think that the govt plucks its' figures from - a rabbits' arse?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> I think the fiddle of 'tax havens' and 'non doms' needs to be seriously addressed prior to pissing around with the tax system. I'm less interested in someone earning £100, 000 being taxed a few percent more than I am plutocrats draining the economy because their wife in Monaco 'owns' the business, presently.



Agreed. Too many little tricks to facilitate that sort of chicanery.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2011)

southside said:


> Society is fucked,
> 
> That's the problem.



Society isn't fucked. Society is more than the economic and political structures fucking us over. Society exists as long as people exist. Look at most "social ills" long enough, and you'll see that those structures are behind it, not society itself.



> I resent paying tax because in its current format it's keeping me poor.



What keeps you poor is an economic mode that allows private wealth to socialise any costs or debts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2011)

southside said:


> Society is not fine, you are fucking mad if you think that.
> 
> Being used to attack others? explain.



Isn't it obvious? You rail against the "causes" of your poverty, but the causes you rail against are the *structural* causes, they're the "causes" the media and the pols assign to be scapegoats. This isn't about "easily-fiddled benefits" or similar, it's about political acceptance of a mode of economics that validates raping the public to enhance the wealth of the private. Get a fucking grip.


----------



## Ae589 (Dec 13, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Only if your conception of effort doesn't encompass the idea of exertion.
> 
> Are they? They'r very obviously taxes on *someone's* effort.



The income tax applied to the money when it was earned taxed that effort.  At this point, the tax is not applied to effort, but ownership.  Put another way, the tax does not disincentivise effort.

I take your point about exertion not being reflected in pay, and agree - I think that's another discussion.  My question was "Why income tax specifically?".  Wouldn't it be better to pick something that disincentivises something we consider bad for society?


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 13, 2011)

> Why income tax specifically? I think income tax is the worst of all taxes - a tax on effort.





> the tax is not applied to effort, but ownership...





> the tax does not disincentivise effort...pick something that disincentivises something we consider bad for society



That makes about fuck all sense, especially as an argument for raising income tax.  you're all over the shop.


----------



## Ae589 (Dec 13, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> That makes about fuck all sense, especially as an argument for raising income tax. you're all over the shop.



I'm not arguing to raise income tax, I'm wondering why income tax was singled out.  Now I'm wondering why I'm getting plenty of stick without anyone bothering to answer the question.

Yes, when you take little bits of sentences and put them next to each other, the sense disappears.  Imagine that.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 13, 2011)

Ae589 said:


> The income tax applied to the money when it was earned taxed that effort. At this point, the tax is not applied to effort, but ownership. Put another way, the tax does not disincentivise effort.
> 
> I take your point about exertion not being reflected in pay, and agree - I think that's another discussion. My question was "Why income tax specifically?". *Wouldn't it be better to pick something that disincentivises something we consider bad for society?*



Like a tax on alcohol or tobacco, for example?


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 13, 2011)

Earlier in the thread you called income tax "a tax on effort", now you say "the tax is not applied to effort, but ownership". Fine. I've not singled out income tax at all, so I don't know why you're asking me. I imagine because it's not a regressive, but a progressive tax.



> Wouldn't it be better to pick something that disincentivises something we consider bad for society?



Like what?


----------



## Ae589 (Dec 13, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> I imagine because it's not a regressive, but a progressive tax.



Is inheritance tax considered regressive?



fractionMan said:


> Like what?



Well, like ineritance   Or Tobin tax, or Land tax.




			
				Blagsta said:
			
		

> Like a tax on alcohol or tobacco, for example?


Hmm, I guess.  Not going to take from those most able to afford it.  Tobin tax qualifies - it would reduce the amount of high-frequency trading performed, which is just a method of taking money as it passes through the system.


----------



## Nigel (Dec 13, 2011)

trampie said:


> Yes i did post something similar but wanted to put up a poll to see if posters on this site would be prepared to pay more tax to give the poor a better living and the working man and woman a decent pension, lots of people on this site like to portray themselves as left wing....hmm


Wouldn't it be better to get the 'poor', wherever possible into full time wor; paying taxes and contribting to society than overtaxing many working people into ever increasing debt.

More needs to be done to prevent false claims for incapcity benefit and disability allowance and to get more people who are unempled into voluntary work or full time training.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2011)

i think enough is being done to prevent false claims for benefits etc ... probably more than enough


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 13, 2011)

How does forcing the unemployed to do voluntary work help?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2011)

Nigel said:


> Wouldn't it be better to get the 'poor', wherever possible into full time wor; paying taxes and contribting to society than overtaxing many working people into ever increasing debt.



It'd be fine and dandy to help people find work (if there's work to be found) *if* the work pays enough so that people are relatively better-off, and the work isn't so insecure or unstable that they'll be back filling out claim forms within a couple of months.

Otherwise, all you're doing is churning people on and off of the dole, with all the attendant bureaucratic and social costs.



> More needs to be done to prevent false claims for incapcity benefit and disability allowance and to get more people who are unempled into voluntary work or full time training.



Same old shit from Nigel, despite having his nose rubbed in the extremely low levels of DLA and IB fraud found by the govt (who had to use the figure for fraud *and* their own and client mistakes in order to produce a headline last time they checked it).

If you want to make a fuss, make a fuss about Housing Benefit fraud by private landlords, probably the least-policed sector of benefit fraud even though it costs each local authorities millions (and in many cases tens of millions) of pounds a year.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> How does forcing the unemployed to do voluntary work help?



How does it help the unemployed? It doesn't. For all the pious certainties about it teaching people the dignity of labour, all it'll teach them is that they're worth less than shit to the people in the Palace of Westminster; that they're fodder for corporate shit-work and not even worthy of a fair wage.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 13, 2011)

well, quite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> well, quite.



The only vaguely positive aspect to it is that this continued poking of the unemployed, disabled etc with sticks may provoke a reaction that they're not expecting.


----------



## Nigel (Dec 14, 2011)

w


ViolentPanda said:


> It'd be fine and dandy to help people find work (if there's work to be found) *if* the work pays enough so that people are relatively better-off, and the work isn't so insecure or unstable that they'll be back filling out claim forms within a couple of months.
> 
> Otherwise, all you're doing is churning people on and off of the dole, with all the attendant bureaucratic and social costs.
> 
> ...



When I briefly worked as AO for the UBO in early nineties internal fraud far outweighed that of claiments, I should imagine with internal market and recent blatent privatisation of this area of the public sector this has got worse.

A doley scrounging(someone who doesn't want to work) friend of mine claims that agencies automatically turn down all assesments for Incapacity Benefit made by 'independent doctors' and that after appeal 70% get through. Sounds like definite policy to cut numbers by quite unintrgral means; the less confident,genuinlt ill, easily intimidated probably less likely to appeal where as the 'proffessional' claiment who knows how to use and abuse the system will,

Capitalism cannot and does not want to have full employment and without the dictatorship of the proletariat with the ability to establish gulags for those that refuse to work, there is no real way of abolishing unemployment.


----------



## Nigel (Dec 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> How does it help the unemployed? It doesn't. For all the pious certainties about it teaching people the dignity of labour, all it'll teach them is that they're worth less than shit to the people in the Palace of Westminster; that they're fodder for corporate shit-work and not even worthy of a fair wage.


Get the impression they mainly get put to 'work' in charity shops and such.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 14, 2011)

A bold pro-gulag stance there nigel.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> A bold pro-gulag stance there nigel.



Nigel likes to try to be controversial.

Fails miserably, like.


----------



## trampie (Dec 14, 2011)

Nigel said:


> Wouldn't it be better to get the 'poor', wherever possible into full time wor; paying taxes and contribting to society than overtaxing many working people into ever increasing debt.
> 
> More needs to be done to prevent false claims for incapcity benefit and disability allowance and to get more people who are unempled into voluntary work or full time training.


You wont get full employment in a capitalist system, workers dont work for the good of society they work to make a tiny class of capitalists very rich, unemployment is needed in a capitalist system to regulate wage levels.


----------



## Nigel (Dec 14, 2011)

In any socialist utopia if I get to run my own Gulag I'll be a happy man


----------



## Nigel (Dec 14, 2011)

trampie said:


> You wont get full employment in a capitalist system, workers dont work for the good of society they work to make a tiny class of capitalists very rich, unemployment is needed in a capitalist system to regulate wage levels.


Sort of agree, however think that you've opened up a whole can of worms there.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 14, 2011)

southside said:


> So do you think it to be OK that some people screw the system?


any such 'screwing of the (benefits) system is usually done by people justtrying to survive, is massively exagerrated by the press, and is as nothing compared to tax avoidance by the wealthy. work out who the real enemy is


----------



## southside (Dec 14, 2011)

I was a bit drunk when I last posted on this thread.

I know who the real enemy is, well at least I think I do.  It's the rich people who have kept me employed solidly for the past 12 years and have ensured that over that period I've pretty much remained static.  That cycle of employment could end soon but there is no denying I made a half decent decision in terms of where I chose to whore my labor and I've gained good experience and I have managed to hoist my earnings toward the top 10% of the country before 2008.  Now though, I'm surviving on a lesser wage in a volatile market place where I'm sort of expecting the worst possible scenario to unfold.

Having said this part of me thinks it's a ploy to get productivity up so they can award themselves a 50% rise on their salary while we the workers are ever grateful for their employment.

Inflation is hurting people at the moment and most workers can't afford to have their tax hiked in the pay packet imo, they'll use stealth to further blead our standard of living though so the average person is kept in their place.


----------



## trevhagl (Dec 15, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> The correct question is "if you hired someone who'd work for £40k as CEO, would it lose the company more money than it saved?"



ah so the higher you pay the top bosses the better the company does, i see. Like banks.


----------

