The Labour Government

Has anybody thought that we need to get more people into work so helping people with child benefit could free some time up for them to go to work? Help with child care? I mean a lot of right wing wankers hate the idea of "giving people free stuff" and also "why don't they go back to work?" and can't see the join are people who are well off entitled toss pots - oh Richard Tice just entered the conversation.
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
I don’t know for sure I thought everyone with two children got CB but if they also claimed UC that was only for two children so it will increase both benefits I think ?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the number of children you have should increase your UC amount so the people who need it get it. Those who dont need it dont get it. Whether there is any limit to the additional amount you get for the number of children is up for debate I guess.
 
Where do you start to improve the poverty of poor families,? I would do away with child benefit and provide food vouchers for needy families and make nursery places free for the under fives, so everyone can go out to work. I don’t know how that would affect disabled people with children it’s a minefield and I don’t envy any chancellor the job of making the books balance
 
bluethrunthru said:
Has anybody thought that we need to get more people into work so helping people with child benefit could free some time up for them to go to work? Help with child care? I mean a lot of right wing wankers hate the idea of "giving people free stuff" and also "why don't they go back to work?" and can't see the join are people who are well off entitled toss pots - oh Richard Tice just entered the conversation.
Click to expand...
You really are sanctimonious twat aren't you.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I completely and disagree with that. I think it's wrong on every level.

First, taxes on wealth are extremely poor at actually collecting tax. It's quite difficult to not work, or to not buy anything, so taxes on employment and on spending are very efficient with extremely high collection rates. Unlike taxes on wealth.

The latter cause people to change their behaviour, because guess what, no-one like paying high rates of tax. So if you have a million in an investment account and were planning on liquidating some of it, then if the capital gains tax is too high, you don't bother. You sit on your money waiting for the day when the rate might be lower or the allowances higher, so often less tax is actually collected than before the rate went up.

And taxing people on all their assets is extremely expensive and difficult to calculate. What is YOUR net worth? I have no idea what mine is. How on earth is the HMRC supposed to work that out? They'd need years and an army of people and it would be open to huge amounts of tax evasion with people with vast undeclared assets.

So, no, wealth taxes don't work. But then there's my second point. They are grossly unfair. People go about their daily lives and they earn money and unless they are criminals, they pay their taxes in full compliance with the law. Some of them get rich by their efforts and have wealth that they have accumulated fair and square. What right do you have to say "look at that bloke, he's rich, let's have some of his money off him". It's completely immoral. Legalised theft.

So it's wrong pragmatically and wrong morally. It's just a really bad idea.
Click to expand...
Honestly, you just can't see whats happening.

The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. Neoliberalism has facilitated that.

At some pont in the future, their increasing wealth will be enough to impact your life in a negative way.

You are, literally, spouting the nonsense they want you to believe, with all the propoganda they sponsor in the media they own and echoed by the politicians they own.

I'll tell you what theft is. Deca millionaires and billionairs taking money for goods and services from people that can barely afford them, making huge profits from those barely affordable payments, and paying themselves huge salaries and bonuses to enrich themselves to such a degree they have absolutely no use for all the money they have amassed. Back street money lenders operate like that. It's like collecting stamps to them, money for money's sake, and for the life of me I can't understand why you want to protect that position when it will come and bite you in the arse at some point in the future.

What is immoral is the way they have conditioned the ordinary person into accepting taxing them is wrong. It isn't.

In the years wealth was taxed, we had social programmes that worked, food banks didn't exist, ordinary people enjoyed having an increasing standard of living, and the wealthy weren't penalised to the extent you may imagine.

If you don't believe they should be taxed in a fair way, then say hello to increasing struggles in your life.

They really don't care about you, but appreciate your support.
 
Last edited:
Kirkstall Blue said:
The chancellor set to abolish the two child benefit cap on Wednesday but will it lift children out of poverty .?
Click to expand...

I prefer lifting the cap to breakfast clubs as an anti poverty strategy.

As a right wing wanker I am always drawn to policy that puts the individual in charge rather than blanket state intervention no matter your circumstances (ie the new breakfast clubs apply to poor and wealthy alike).

I’d prefer it if lifting it was being done for the right reasons rather than doing it for saving the government’s skin - still the outcome is more important than the reasons
 
Last edited:
I see David Lammy has been working his magic again, this time naming Bill Cosby as one of his top male role models.

Is there no end to this man’s talents and wisdom?
 
We've got Guardiola said:
You are missing one thing with this, you are only considering who you perceive to be wealthy by what they hold but you're missing how pension funds work. If you have a private pension then your pension is not a fund within itself. Most invest their pensions within a much larger fund and these funds buy into assets worth tens of billions.

Most would have to pay this tax because of the assets held by the pension fund. How much do funds appreciate per year on average? 5-10%? Would you happily remove 1% from your pension value per year?

Most people won't accept this, they want to maximise their pension and part of that means being tax-efficient. I do it myself, I am a tax avoider because I earn over £50k and put more into my pension to pay less tax because every £1 I earn over £50k is taxed at 40%. I could just accept that 40% is taxed and keep 60% and forget about it but I don't accept giving my money away so why would the rich think differently?

1% may seem like nothing but we'd all rather pay nothing and the rich are far more capable of finding ways to pay less. The problem is we want great public services but the evidence is we're simply not willing to pay for it. We see it on here, everybody comes up with various tax solutions where the main factor is it isn't them paying.
Click to expand...
Thanks, but having been in drawdown from my PP for nearly 10 years, I do have an inkling how they work. My portfolio is spread across 16 funds and has grown about 12% this year. Whilst not as substantial as my friend, that is 12% that I have done nothing to get except be invested-something I really have no choice to do otherwise inflation bites. I don't know at what level a, say, 1% levy should/could kick in, but let's say those with a fund over £2m. That's a one off levy of £20k. It could be taken directly out as charges are to pay fees.

As for your position. Good that you're contributing to your pension and taking advantage of a 40% bung from other tax payers, actually being subsidised by those that can't afford to pay in extra to their own pension. But don't forget, that money that has now been sucked out of the economy is effectively now "dead" until you choose to draw down and put some of it back into the economy. I don't for one minute criticise your action, but it must be seen in context, and I had the same view as you when I was younger. The fact is you're not "giving it away", you're contributing to the services that you/we all use, but as you allude to, you're one of those that isn't really prepared to pay for those services.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top