Re mansion tax, we not in it together

[BreakingDad77]

AIBU to think it's only the poor, infirm and elderly getting squeezed, to cut government spending and reduce the deficit.

FreudiianSlipper Charity is a wonderful thing, but for the most part is has been decimated by the welfare state. I am sure no-one would remove your right to give whatever you wish from your labour to others. That is a noble and voluntary action, and those acts of kindness are present in all societies.

But I don't see how you can justify deciding to take more morey from your brother or your neighbour's wages under threat of jail if they do not pay, for the purpose of achieving your goal. It ceases to be a noble act when it is done under duress with threat of menaces.

jail

Puzzled There is a marked difference between those with debilitating illness or disability, and those 'unable to find work'. I would suggest paying millions of pound to a French conglomerate to determine that distinction is a perfect example of why the welfare state apparatus does not work. Still, I'm sure someone somewhere can justify why we need to tax those who do work to pay those millions of pounds is justified. Surely it would be far cheaper for everyone concerned to reduce your family's tax burden than to tax everyone in the country, pay the bulk of it to a subcontract company, and only a minuscule portion of it to the actual recipient of the supposed welfare.

FreudianSlipper If you do not agree with, and do not pay a tax, you go to jail. If you believe everyone should pay more tax, of select people only should pay more tax, you are effectively saying, "I think that person should pay more of his wages to the the welfare state, and if he doesn't he should be threatened and if he does not relent, he should be jailed.

Taking money with menaces is never noble, no matter how noble the intent.

Why don't we give them jobs? Why not pay them £25/hr to maintain council property? It's jobs and money they want, not the chance to sit around and talk about not having them! We have all seen the run down nature of council housing stock. Why not pay job seekers £25 an hour to maintain the buildings and the land?

It's a good question and a good idea. Much of the London Underground (and other projects) was built via what was basically a huge job creation scheme in the 20s and 30s. It could be done again.

Lots of unemployed people would go for that.

Jobs that offer guaranteed interviews (not guaranteed jobs) to people who have been out of work for x months plus are also needed. Often employers don't look past the CV gap to see the capable employee.

tax does not only go towards the welfare state everyone knows this

if someone chooses not to pay their tax then yes they should either be fined or go to jail as they will in some way be benefitting from tax being paid, if they can not afford to pay more tax or NI which i do believe needs to be increased in line with earnings (and not down to living way beyond their means or purposely getting rid of money) the lowest no increase

tax needs to be paid in order to keep many services running it is not a charity payment it is a payment towards keeping the running of our country, no one is going to argue that at times it is not spent as well as it should be or spent in areas that they disagree with

too many people get away with pay far less tax than they should and would be no doubt inclined to pay nothing if it were a choice

I would suggest paying millions of pound to a French conglomerate to determine that distinction is a perfect example of why the welfare state apparatus does not work. Still, I'm sure someone somewhere can justify why we need to tax those who do work to pay those millions of pounds is justified. Surely it would be far cheaper for everyone concerned to reduce your family's tax burden than to tax everyone in the country, pay the bulk of it to a subcontract company, and only a minuscule portion of it to the actual recipient of the supposed welfare

Huh?

Why not go back to the system of sickness and disability benefits that didn't rely on expensive external contracts?

Jesus Ellie could start a row in an empty room!
Op, Yanbu imo.

I'm against this purely because it will reinforce the dominance of the South-East. Property values are far higher there so more will be inherited by those whose parents lived there meaning young people from outside it will never be able to compete or get onto the ladder there leading to increased polarisation

Ellie "If the answer is, 'councils don't have the money', then there are a couple of solutions to that too. Firstly you could stop paying the outrageous fees you already do pay to subcontract service companies, and secondly, you could stop paying the outrageous wages you already do pay to those many layers and layers of council staff you need to employ to justify their wages. All without having to tax the British public or increase the national debt. But then we can't have councils making real savings and helping to poor can we? Better they just pass the cuts on to the public and make them suffer instead? Good old politics at its best. "

wait a minute, if you are saying the system is broken and needs sorting, yes it does. But if you keep mentioning Jeremy Kyle then the valid points you make are in danger of getting lost. Unless I've completely misunderstood what you've said.

... and we in this country look at the Greeks and thing they are corrupt because the people do not pay tax, knowing their government is mishandling their tax revenue.

So we pay our taxes and do nothing when Mr X sits on his backside all day with his 6 kids claiming more money in benefits than your average adult can earn, all the time Mr Y works all the hours God sends because he without it he will watch his wife die, because our government have decreed that Mr X and his serious bone idle issues are far more worthy than Mrs Y's motor function disorder.

How fucked up is a welfare system that encourages able bodied people to sit on their backsides, and punishes those with disability? At what point do we stop rewarding those who refuse work and start caring for those who need our care?

This is not an issue that can be solved by taking wealth from those who have worked all their lives, this is a problem that can be solved by taking the money from the wilfully idle, and giving it to the desperately needy. The 'job seekers' will find work fast enough when their food runs out.

Why not just wait for the budget and see what it actually contains, rather than scaremongering?

Great point Ellie! I'd hate for your child's taxes to be spent on some good-for-nothing layabout so when my husband, who has worked full time for the last 30 years, and has spent the last 20 years working in the same job, is made redundant next week, I shall be sure to tell him on a daily basis that he is a lazy fucker who can't be bothered to go out and earn a living.

He wants to look for another job straight away. I've told him to take a break for the next few months. Does that irritate you?

Not at all. I merely point out the inequity in the system. Of course all those that are unemployed have been working everyday for the past 30 years, and I'm sure every one of them is entitled to every penny that they receive in benefits. I just don't agree that money should be taken from me to pay for them when I could be saving that money, and they could have spent the last thirty years saving for just such an occurrence. And, no, paying national insurance into the welfare system is not saving for when you need it, because very few of us ever earn enough to pay into the system what we take out of it. We are all happy to take from the system and use the NHS, but none of us are willing to pay the actual cost of paying for what we use. Hence Britain is in greater debt than at any time in its history, and that debt is increasing year on year.

One alternative solution could be to nationalise all housing stock over £250K and debunk the occupants into council built housing. You could give the government bonds in recognition of the contribution they are making to their fellow citizens and then sell the houses to foreign investors. One big boost to welfare coffers and a nice warm fuzzy feeling knowing those that worked hard for their homes were happily helping out those who found themselves unable to cope with life.

The problem with any socialist ideology is that you run out of people to take money, and the only way to get money from people is by coercion. Have you thought maybe we could have a voluntary system where everyone gives what they choose to give, and to whom. Then those who are good and generous people find solace in their fellow man when they need them most, and those who are nasty and uncaring need to make damn sure they look out for themselves because few people if any would be willing to help them out?

Perhaps you'd be happier in USA Ellie. Please don't let us stop you from moving there.

Too many guns.

Why not put your hand in your pocket to help out those less fortunate than yourselves in your community? I don't mean dropping a few coming in a collection jar or volunteering at the CAB. I mean offering up room and board to those far less fortunate than yourselves. Guiding them in attaining work, teaching them essential skills, mentoring them if like. Or does socialism only extend as far spending other people's money?

Personally I save for future crises. But it means forgoing holidays, television, eating out, etc. We won't be living on welfare when We are capable of saving and taking action beforehand to prevent it. But them I guess I could just blow the family budget, fly off to Spain for a few weeks, and we can live on social if the unpredictable happens.

I'd rather people who really needed the money had access to it, so I save and don't leach off of other people. There are those who have debilitating illnesses, or critically ill children to care for, and I guess there are always those who want to take a holiday 'between jobs' too. For some though 'between jobs' means three years and counting, and in there lies the problem. Would they choose not to work if it means not eating, or would their stomachs be the incentive they need to raise their backsides off their sofas?

The people paying for the spending, ie those that pay tax ( and in many cases a lot of tax) are sick of having to foot the £12bn benefits bill, and the country needs to make economies.

That would be me then. And I'm not even a tiny bit tired of paying benefits to people worse off than me. I am however sick to the fucking back teeth of the rich getting richer off the backs of the poor, selling off OUR public ownership into private hands and paying Tesco's wages bill while benefit claimants are forced to work for free etc etc etc.

Oddly enough, I've already done that. My DH works for a charity and we have had pregnant women stay with us while we sort accommodation for them. I help them get support that is available and we also feed them for free! Empathy is in short supply in today's society, sadly. But some of us still care.

Well, that's all very lovely if you're able to save for future crises, Ellie, although I very much doubt that going without a television or holidays has enabled you to save up enough money to provide for yourself whatever crisis may befall you.

My point is that my husband, like the vast majority of those claiming unemployment benefit, has not chosen to be jobless. This is the crisis that, should it happen to you, you will have so cleverly been saving for. But many people simply aren't able to save. Not because they are stupid or irresponsible, but simply because they don't earn enough in the first place. Britain is a country that chooses to allow employers to pay their staff less than a living wage and employ very many of them on zero-hours contracts so it cannot also then expect people to be able to save. Of course you could force employers to pay a much higher minimum wage so they could save and ban zero-hours contracts but I suspect the upshot of that would simply be much higher unemployment because companies would move their operations to countries where labour was cheaper.

As it happens we have a healthy amount of savings to fall back on although I am not so naive as to think we could ever save so much as to be able to provide for us and our dependents until our dying days. Luckily we have something far more valuable - a second full-time working adult - so we'll be just fine.

Iain Duncan Smith will NOT reveal the figures as he is a sociopathic CUNT

I haven't rtft, as it started to get tiresome. However, I came across an interesting article yesterday dated 23 June 2015.

Here is the link

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/23/skivers-strivers-200-year-old-myth-wont-die

From the link

The media’s campaign of vilification associates social security with disgrace, and proposes even more humiliation, exhortation, intrusion, bullying and sanctions. This Thursday, the new household income figures are likely to show a sharp rise in child poverty, after sustained reductions under the Labour government. Doubtless the poor will be blamed for improvidence and feckless procreation, and urged to overcome their moral failings through aspiration. For 230 years, this convenient myth has resisted all falsification. Expect that to persist.

I do feel that the criticism of the suggestion that households earning £30k plus should pay market rent on their council house a bit laughable though. Seems to me that the tories were voted in on the basis that they were only going to go after the "feckless" but now that they are moving their aim towards those working and earning money people are shocked.

It probably will reach a point in which they won't go any further, in order to protect their own interests, but lets be clear, unless you are exceedingly wealthy, you will be a target at some point. And looking down on those less fortunate than you wont get you anywhere. They are pitting people against each other, and it is staggering how many people are buying into it.

Ellie what is your view on why the tories changed the definition of child poverty?

Does it not seem suspicious they are changing the definition to suit their policies?

Because the definition of child poverty as 60% of median income means that, during a recession, poverty levels fall. Greece almost certinly has less people living in poverty now on the 60% definition, but also has genuinely starving people. Surely the definition should fit the actualite.

They are doing exactly what they are employed to do. If you understand the purpose of politics in government, it would come as no surprise. What they are doing is framing public opinion, propagandising if you will. The country is moving in a specific direction because of geopolitical factors and global economics. It cannot be altered, only steered. Those who govern have substantially more access to data than us, and substantially more insight into the future of nations.

Their job is to manage public perception. Not the Tories, all government. The government of the day. So long as you continue to support the status quo, continue to pay your taxes, continue to vote when you're told to, continue to think with the herd, and on the whole continue to be a predictable populous, then the framework built to house and govern us works.

We can focus on the minutiae and play the finger pointy game. It is fun and we get to pick sides, but until we wake up and realise that we are being manipulated, we won't be able to change anything. Most of us will only every be able to run with the herd.

They are changing the definition so they can point blame at the workless parents, and other agencies, rather than it being about lack of income due to benefit cuts and sanctions.