I'd say you and I pay our fair share of taxes, which isn't the case for avoiders. I'm by no means a fan of layabouts who milk the system, but benefits seekers in general are borne out of necessity or social issues, whereas avoiders are flat out about greed.
Daily Mail
- Thread starter p_ps_sock
- Start date
I'd say you and I pay our fair share of taxes, which isn't the case for avoiders. I'm by no means a fan of layabouts who milk the system, but benefits seekers in general are borne out of necessity or social issues, whereas avoiders are flat out about greed.
This!! People keep on bringing up the millionaires, but at least they have paid some tax. Scroungers that are born here or were born overseas are simply killing the United Kingdom. Here in France, you will be forever asked for a cigarette, and I always say, why don't you get a job, you'll be able to buy some then. It winds me up that there are those who are quite happy to be sitting around doing feck all until they for their two-weekly signing on session.
16 billion was lost from Millionaire tax avoiders,a drop in the ocean compared to the odd work dodger.
Do you actually talk to these people. Apart from "Go get a job"
They would probably try mugging him if he chatted any longer.
Whenever I get asked for a smoke I point out the nearest ATM and tell them to take some cash out to buy some.
Whenever I get asked for a smoke I point out the nearest ATM and tell them to take some cash out to buy some.
Said the aristocrat
They would probably try mugging him if he chatted any longer.
Whenever I get asked for a smoke I point out the nearest ATM and tell them to take some cash out to buy some.
Now i'm sure you must be on a wind up.Greed is the driving force of the capitalist society we live in, scrounging lay abouts are the cancer of it. The system would collapse without the greed of the super wealthy while it would be a lot better off without the people who have every intention of milking the system and no intention of contributing.
It pains me how much that sounds like something that would be written for the Mail but its true.
It really isn't. In the town I work in I get asked nearly everyday for a smoke. It takes its toll.
Although it has lead them to get a little aggravated at times.
Capitalism needs a lower class as much as it needs an upper class. Besides, if everyone decided they don't want to pay their fair share of tax I wonder what would happen to this lovely capitalism of ours?
You're very offensively mixing up "Lower Class" with "benefit scroungers".
Of course Capitalism needs a lower class, it needs people to do the jobs at the lower end of industry. Not sit on their arse and take money out of the system.
Here in France, there is a rule? If you want something from someone, you use "Vous", instead of "Tu." "Tu", is reserved for those who know you very well. However, when someone comes up to you and asks 'T'as une clope", I simply say no. He asked me as if he knew me for one, and I am not a tobacco shop. If someone said "Vous", then that might change the situation.
They would probably try mugging him if he chatted any longer.
Whenever I get asked for a smoke I point out the nearest ATM and tell them to take some cash out to buy some.
Indeed.
I am no aristocrat, I work for my money and to be honest, it pisses me off having to fecking subsidise those who think they can ask a ciggie from me, the cheek of it all.
The only way to solve that problem is to bring rolling tobacco and then offer that. They have a choice, either roll their own, or feck off. Another thing, I get asked for a cigarette from more bling, bling chavvie types than I do homeless people, and that is saying something.
But how do you distinguish between those who are milking the system and those who are genuinely hard up? You can't reign in the milkers without reigning in everyone else.
Collateral damage. To a lot of people, it's better everybody vulnerable suffers than a few get a few quid more than they should.
We could just have a mass cull.
How about you say that we don't have the money anymore and make the cuts you need to make and leave it there. Why do you then have to go on to justify those cuts by insulting and vilifying those you take the money from.
There's not been any remotely serious discussion of such a thing, because old people vote. Personally I'm against any cuts on such spending, because I'm a big fan of certain universal benefits. What I am in favour of us is honesty in discussions about welfare spending. I desire people to be truthful about who gets what money and why. Instead we get demagoguery and relentless deceit.
They don't get a huge amount to live on, you ignorant illiterate, I showed you as much in the very post you're citing. Yet again you're reading 'welfare' as 'people who don't work', because you're incapable of seeing beyond your turbo-privileged little world, where 'Welfare' is a byword for giving money to the poor. The vast, vast majority of welfare spending goes to either people who do work or people who have worked. Show me where at any point I said we should be spending more on those who don't work?
And hey, seeing as you disapprove of higher taxes on the working population, I presume you must be heavily in favour of a substantial increase in capital gains tax?
People like you are entirely unable to understand that the vast majority of rich people worked no harder than the vast majority of poor people, we just happen to have a society which disproportionately rewards a small number of people, and in that sense the rich haven't at all 'fairly earned their money'.
And yes, I do happen to agree with Hollande's belief that in times of dire economic need it should be the incredibly wealthy who dig us out of the mess, because their wealth is borne entirely from that society, and when society is under threat largely because of the system which made them so rich, they must be the ones to ensure it's continuing prosperity.
It's greed which stops people much fairer taxes and in doing so striving to create a much fairer society. Or rather it's a heady mix of greed, vodoo-economics and relentless propaganda.
If all of the above is too long for you to be concerned with replying to, then I have one simple request. Admit that 'welfare' does not mean 'giving money to the poor', or anything even remotely close to that, or be forever considered an illiterate. Also, just because you have incredible difficulty with the definitions of words, and to save you using it as a shorthand to dismiss my views, no, I'm not a socialist.
How does it feel to know you've been entirely taken in by one of the most transparent bits of propaganda in human history? You are exactly why the tabloids harp on endlessly about a handful of 'scroungers'. Exactly how far would you be willing to go to 'inconvenience' one scrounger, would you starve ten children? How about causing a hundred disabled people to live in terror of a doctor's appointment? Maybe you'd force a thousand young jobseekers to sweep the floors of Homebase?
At what point does punishing the one scrounger cease being worth the suffering of the many, many more innocents?
Oh, nevermind, I see you're just so hysterically naive you probably don't have a clue how badly you're being taken for a sucker. Cui bono, my friend, cui bono?
But didn't the govt raise the bar for qualification? So these people would know they won't qualify anymore so why bother going to the medical.
Just to briefly bring this back on topic, here's yet another example of the massive damage the Daily Mail wreaks on our society.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22048635
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22048635
I work with some people who think that immunisations are an evil so they don't get their children jabbed. They're quite happy with all the other children taking the jab though and living with the benefits of the diseases not being able to spread. Honestly it makes me sick.
What's wrong with job seekers sweeping a few floors?
How do you feel, knowing that there are hundreds, or possibly thousands who are claiming disability living allowances for bad backs or what have you, only to find out that they have been caught on camera doing some gardening or working on the side? The only people that have messed up the benefit system for those who genuinely need it are those who made fraudently claims for non-existent injuries or bad backs. Also, society is to blame in that they have not come up with a system that checks as to whether you are looking for a job or not. There are those who have been deemed long-term unemployed, for a reason other than a disability. I mean, wtf!!!
If they have nothing wrong with them, and they have been deemed fit for work, how on earth can the benefits system justify their expenditure for someone who does NOT want to work?Again, you are correct. They say that you have more of a change getting a job when you are in one, than you would have sitting on your backside playing on the internet all day. I took a risk by coming here to Paris and guess what, two weeks into my stay, I found a job. All governments are to blame and those who scrounge off the state (not those who genuinely want to work, as my dad was unemployed in those horrible times in the early 80s and he wanted to work) just to fund their chavvy lifestyle and drink cider all day, don't deserve to have the benefits. I say, the government should bring in a system where you have 6 months to find a job, if you haven't found one, and you have no proof that you have looked for one, then they get put into a job whether they like it or not.
Shit happens, we can't tar everyone with the same brush.
Also, society is to blame in that they have not come up with a system that checks as to whether you are looking for a job or not. There are those who have been deemed long-term unemployed, for a reason other than a disability. I mean, wtf!!!
What do you propose as a method of weeding out who the leaches are? I'm genuinely eager to know, and I'm sure our government would be.
Indeed.
The idea of not working for what I have sounds degrading to me. Make people who aren't even trying go litter pick or something at least. It's not hard to prove you really are looking. Save emails or keep phone records, if you haven't got anything to do other than look for a job then you have enough time to keep up a record that you are trying.
Is that all you have to offer, "shit happens"? First of all, it is fraud just like those millionaires who fraud too. It is about time the government started to name and shame those who claim disability when they can genuinely work. Personally speaking, in this day and age, I don't know how anyone can be a snob and not take a job doing cleaning or what have you. It gives you at least the independance, some sort of pride and responsibility that you need. However, some people are above that and are just snobs of the worst kind. Let us just say this, before I went to University, I stayed with a friend and he was a full-time cleaner. He got me a job to help him out, since I needed money for books and what have you ready for Uni.
I still have a spreadsheet on my computer with regards to job seeking. Suffice to say, every other week I went in, they were getting wound up because of it. As I said, I think we have more snobs within the lower working class than ever. If you have a family to provide for i.e. the chavs on Jeremy Kyle for wanting of a better example, then they should work instead of getting the dole to pay for their cider.
I like how you focus so much on the first comment when it's a direct product of the second, to which you obviously have no answer.
Anyway, this stuff probably deserves its own thread.
Fair play to the scroungers, I say. Do as little as possible and take as much as you can.
The answer is quite simple. Give the people who make the decisions better training and more freedom to use their discretion. I'm sure like all government funded things the red tape is insane.
In terms of sorting out the long term unemployed or the scroungers I would (after the worst of the recession passes) impose a system of staged benefit payments rewarding those who want to work. These are rough figures but I would do something like this for someone who has worked and lost their job.
A guy who worked and earned 40k paying taxes for a few years loses his job I think he could be paid benefits on a sliding scale like this;
0-2 months - 80% of normal salary
3-6 months - 65% of nornal salary
6-12 months - 50% of normal salary
12+ months - Paid a standard very low income supplement.
The advantages to a system like this are that someone who has paid taxes and contributed to the system will see a nice pot there for them should the worst happen and they have two months of relative comfort to get back on their feet. If no work if found in the first two months then they have up to a year of above average payments to get themselves sorted one way or the other. After a year they honestly aren't looking very hard so unless there's a medical reason why they are not working I'd have them on basic rations.
This rewards workers and punishes scroungers whilst encouraging people to get back to work ASAP so they don't droop down the scale.
A guy who worked and earned 40k paying taxes for a few years loses his job I think he could be paid benefits on a sliding scale like this;
0-2 months - 80% of normal salary
3-6 months - 65% of nornal salary
6-12 months - 50% of normal salary
12+ months - Paid a standard very low income supplement.
The advantages to a system like this are that someone who has paid taxes and contributed to the system will see a nice pot there for them should the worst happen and they have two months of relative comfort to get back on their feet. If no work if found in the first two months then they have up to a year of above average payments to get themselves sorted one way or the other. After a year they honestly aren't looking very hard so unless there's a medical reason why they are not working I'd have them on basic rations.
This rewards workers and punishes scroungers whilst encouraging people to get back to work ASAP so they don't droop down the scale.
This is what happens over here in France. It is an effective system and it stops the chavvy types from hanging around, like they do in the United Kingdom and Ireland. However, your scale should apply to everyone, whether they earned 10K per year or 100K per year;
Wait, what. Argh the pain.
So you want to pay the rich to be unemployed. And pay them more money than the poor.
Someone who earns 40k a year will pay a bit less than 10k a year in income tax http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/tax-calculator/. You want to pay him 32k a year for being unemployed!
Physical pain going on here!
40K Job for one year: Pays 10k in tax. Unemployed for one year: is payed 30k a year.
I don't quite know if you meant those figures to be "after tax" or whatever but my god.
What would have been better would be someone who earns an average wage.
What would have been better is not paying the rich MORE MONEY THAN THE POOR to be unemployed
No wait.
What would have been better is not paying the rich to be unemployed!
It's quite amazing isn't it. As if giving some ex-corporate more money than the average salary so he can fill up his BMW is an acceptable way to spend my taxes.
How do you feel, knowing that there are hundreds, or possibly thousands who are claiming disability living allowances for bad backs or what have you, only to find out that they have been caught on camera doing some gardening or working on the side? The only people that have messed up the benefit system for those who genuinely need it are those who made fraudently claims for non-existent injuries or bad backs. Also, society is to blame in that they have not come up with a system that checks as to whether you are looking for a job or not. There are those who have been deemed long-term unemployed, for a reason other than a disability. I mean, wtf!!!
I feel that those people who have broken the law and should be dealt with accordingly, and those who have not broken the law should not be treated as if they're guilty by association. Why would I feel otherwise?
It means one less actual paid job in the economy. If people were forced to sweep floors but paid minimum wage for it, as they should be legally, then I'd have less contempt for the work programme, which quite apart from anything else is wildly ineffective and is transparently intended as a disincentive to the unemployed to seek the benefits they're owed.
Have you had any joy with seeking employment chabon?
No, and in the last few days I applied to a number of jobs including one working in a youth hostel, which would involve cleaning toilets, something I've actual experience of too, so I guess at least our Lyonnais friend will approve of me.
If they forced me into a job sweeping floors in Homebase I'd take it, so long as they paid me for my labour. Although I'm actually not presently signed on, because the experience is so dehumanising and counter-productive that I'd rather piss away my savings and live on rather less than IDS' £53 instead.
And, in case you're wondering, my politics are the same now as the last day I worked (now over a year ago, and it was actually a night), I just happen to have a lot more disdain for people who think jobs grow on trees.
If they forced me into a job sweeping floors in Homebase I'd take it, so long as they paid me for my labour. Although I'm actually not presently signed on, because the experience is so dehumanising and counter-productive that I'd rather piss away my savings and live on rather less than IDS' £53 instead.
And, in case you're wondering, my politics are the same now as the last day I worked (now over a year ago, and it was actually a night), I just happen to have a lot more disdain for people who think jobs grow on trees.
Randall will get you a nice gig washin' pots.