maffew
Well-known member
I'd agree, sterotype, most people on benefits are illiterate teenage mums with kids called Kevin and Sharon and go on Jeremy Kyle. It aint the case IMO (but I neither know any figures TBH)
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Surprising Allardyce press conference
- Thread starter Dick Head
- Start date
I'd agree, sterotype, most people on benefits are illiterate teenage mums with kids called Kevin and Sharon and go on Jeremy Kyle. It aint the case IMO (but I neither know any figures TBH)
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
Are we still living in that civilisation? And think before you speak.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
We're all earning more. It's all to do with the proportion of tax paid and the very poorest are paying a record low proportion and the wealthiest a record high.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
It's a very slippery slope when we make comments about poor people having too many children. Firstly. I'm not sure that many poor people actually do have 5 children anymore. The average is still under 2 per family across the country and there's no indication that it's disproportionately higher in less well-off households. Secondly, unless you are super-rich I reckon that purely finance-wise it's never wise to have children. I agree that if you're really struggling financially then that does need to be taken into consideration in a big way, the thought of some sort of eugenics is beyond the pale. Speaking personally, I'm from a family of 5 children, we were dirt poor growing up and no doubt my family got more from the system than we put in during that time but all of us are now adults, we're all taxpayers and repaid that and then some.
Single mothers are the scapegoats but they really aren't the problem and I'm absolutely positive that most of them don't deliberately set out to be in those circumstances. I used to work for a housing charity and during that time did some voluntary work helping tenants with budgeting, understanding their bills and suchlike. The claims that they've all got the latest phones, high-end flat-screen TVs and designer clothes wasn't something I saw very often.
The issue, as both Larus and I have argued, is big business not paying their full whack and the government not having the balls to tackle the problem. There's around 3,500 people employed specifically to prevent benefit fraud whilst only 700 to prevent tax fraud. Benefit fraud is estimated at £1.3bn whilst the 'tax gap' (what should have come in versus what actually did) is estimated at £36bn a year. The focus is clearly arse about face but all the while we get the red top scare stories about benefit fraudsters, public anger is diverted.
Another issue is the disparity between the penalties and interest charged to big businesses and those given to small businesses. Vodafone, Starbucks and Google have gotten away with next to nothing in the way of punitive charges and even have enough clout to negotiate how much of their unpaid tax they are prepared to pay. It's a totally different story if you're a hairdresser, taxi driver or another of the businesses that HMRC regularly investigate (small businesses that have significant unreceipted cash income). I'm all for more transparency to show that we are all treated equally in the eyes of the law and would make it law that all HMRC decisions on tax evasion, the penalties imposed and the rate of interest charged are published. We need to start getting angry with companies that generate significant profits from the UK but who pay negligible UK tax.
Justice
Dangerous Idiot
Did you shag a pigs head last night whilst stereotyping the poor?
brightn'ove
cringe
Yes and the proportion of wealth owned by the top 1% is ever increasing, so again, not surprised that they pay more tax. They SHOULD pay more tax.
brightn'ove
cringe
Agree with every word of this however
- Thread starter
- #68
Last edited:
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
A recent analysis of implementing Labour's proposed increased tax for the very wealthy came to the conclusion that Labour's claim that it would raise £5bn was optimistic at best and at worst could result in less tax collected. The head of the OBR, the independent body responsible for analysing and advising public finances, said a few years ago that the top income tax rates were "strolling across the summit of the Laffer curve”. This is the universally respected economic model that shows just how high taxes can be set before it becomes counter-productive. The mass exodus of high-earners in France is a good example.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066
I do think it's worth repeating that the top earners now contribute a record 30% of all taxes raised. It's all well and good wanting that to be even higher but these are also the people most able to avoid paying any UK tax. A balance needs to be struck and just my opinion but I think it's at a fair level right now.
Very true and hope he put his hand in his own pocket, or someone else's, and made a donation.
janee
Fur half
At work, I do dispense food bank vouchers and work with people who need them. Here are the causes that I see that have very little to do with your guesses above:
People have rents higher than their incomes allow - £50 a month more than housing benefit is impossible to find form a minimum income - this only happened in the last few years
People have serious disabilities or mental health problems often from abuse or other complex issues
Benefits have been frozen for years whilst the cost of fuel, council tax and food have risen
Benefit sanctions have been introduced to meet welfare reduction targets - particularly hitting those with complex needs who cannot deal with complexity
Most people I work with have very few children, no mobiles ( which they need to not be sanctioned from benefits)
I'm wondering if you know any people who actually use food banks or people on minimum incomes?
Boroseagull
Well-known member
They started in the UK in 2008 .....under the then Labour government.
maltaseagull
Well-known member
They aren't doing very well in improving it from where it was in 2008 more like.
Both parties have screwed the country in various ways but far too many will only accept that the other side is at fault.
We need a fully representative coalition government which is determined to do the right thing and not what their party funders want.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
George Orwell wrote about soup kitchens in Wigan in the 30s. Charles Dickens Christmas Carol mentions 2 chaps collecting charity donations for food for the poor. How far back do you want to go?
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Like Wayne Rooney, for example. I'd like to see the red tops have this on their front page, for a change.
https://twitter.com/EvertonNewsFeed/status/944328123293761536
[tweet]944328123293761536[/tweet]
It's not really surprising is it? Surely no one wants to see Food Banks in Britain and we all think it's a pretty sad state of affairs; he was hardly going to come out and say that this what happens when you're a feckless wastrel. Talk is cheap. What would have been 'surprising' was if we'd have found out he was donating half his salary to charity.
maltaseagull
Well-known member
Any real facts to support this?
Or just the usual left wing slur?
There are hundreds of tory MPs and they are all looking after their own kind? (What is their own kind by the way?)
portlock seagull
Why? Why us?
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,081
You need to read part 2, only speaking from my experience adding that a lot of people I know also have no kids. Those that do, 3 kids isn’t uncommon and 4,5 even is more common than you think. Seems that average figure doesn’t add much in the way of this debate. But yes, don’t get me started on corporate tax avoidance. It’s a far bigger problem than benefits ‘abuse’
Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 8,444
Love it....
