[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

Where's the evidence that they are better off???

So you don't think that the general level of services etc are better than 30 years ago??

Don't the poorest in society have more 'goods' than in the past?

LGS would suggest that it is perfectly reasonable that someone on benefits should have TV, Sky, a car, games console etc - was that the case 30 years ago??

Isn't home ownership / car ownership much wider than 30 years ago??

Etc

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

People who are on minimum wage are struggling, full stop, same as they were in the 80's.

That may be the case, but their standard of living is still higher.

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

My SIL would be in that 10%, most likely.
He works when there's work to be had and has commanded £11 an hour.
I'd suggest he's contributed, and as by your previous comments, he was worth it.

That puts paid to the "poorest 10% don't contribute" argument.

Isn't the average worker a net receiver of benefits rather than a payer of tax??

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

And really indicates the people who you are getting at imo ie, dole scroungers.

I'd say it's not fair at all that people who are totally willing to work get less of the benefits.
Workshy?, yes, I'd agree with you.

See, this is what you don't understand.

Plenty of money made from the working man = good economy.
Not so much money made from the working man = ok economy.
No money made from the working man = poor economy.

Nowhere do I see the average working class person doing particularly well when things are good.

What do you class as the average working man??

As above, isn't the 'average worker' a net receiver of benefits rather than a payer of tax??

What is your definition of 'contributing'??


Sidicks

[Cloverleaf]

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

I paid a fortune in stoppages too.
If you paid a lot, you could afford it, simple.

I'm consistent in saying that deductions don't matter to me.
If you worry about those, you'll never be happy, as you'll always be robbed.

I just worry about what I pick up

And who are you to judge what I can afford ? 14K is a lot of money to me, which I can ill afford to give away.

I am being robbed. Bent over, and royally ****** up the ****.

[Badger0-0]

Originally Posted by Cloverleaf

And who are you to judge what I can afford ? 14K is a lot of money to me, which I can ill afford to give away.

I am being robbed. Bent over, and royally ****** up the ****.

Of course you are.
Because you'd rather keep it all to yourself and stuff everyone else, because society doesn't matter at all, as long as you're doing ok

[dejongj]

Originally Posted by Berties

If council tax, food, bills, petrol, cost of running a car was vastly lower than you could pay £2 a hour. But as it is now? LOL you'd be in the red, in fact I bet you wouldn't have money to buy food and clothes.

Strictly speaking why is that an employers problem? As said before the market would then force the wage up if nobody wants to work for that employer.

But also someone had a choice. Heck my council tax bill is over three grand a year. No way I could afford to live on £2 per hour, now I've got a choice do a job that pays that kind of money, or as I have done is make myself valuable such that businesses pay me that every 30 seconds especially in this country of free education everybody got the chance to do so.

[Berties]

Strictly speaking why is that an employers problem? As said before the market would then force the wage up if nobody wants to work for that employer.

What like now? Many people do not want to work for NMW as it's not enough.

[Badger0-0]

Sidicks,

So you don't think that the general level of services etc are better than 30 years ago??

Don't the poorest in society have more 'goods' than in the past?

No, I don't.

Goods do not equal better.
You're going down the monetary possessions road again, as you always tend to, imo.

As for home ownership, why is it so important?
The Germans don't see it as a priority.

Car ownership is a necessity, not a luxury, given that the employers flexibility that you speak of, means workers now have to travel long distances.

That may be the case, but their standard of living is still higher.

Only by your standards. See above.

Isn't the average worker a net receiver of benefits rather than a payer of tax??

You're kidding, yes?
I suspect a trap there, which will lead back to my "average working man" references.
Whatever, it's a red herring.
Those at the top take a bigger share and don't put enough back in, imo.

What is your definition of 'contributing'??

Anyone who works when there's worthwhile work to be had.

And that doesn't mean a fortune better than dole either.

[dejongj]

Originally Posted by Berties

What like now? Many people do not want to work for NMW as it's not enough.

I appreciate that, I wouldn't class it as enough for me and my family. So don't

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

Goods do not equal better.
You're going down the monetary possessions road again, as you always tend to, imo.

I'm providing examples - how would you measure it??

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

As for home ownership, why is it so important?

I didn't say it was, but why are people so keen to buy houses if it's not important to them??

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

Those at the top take a bigger share and don't put enough back in, imo.
.

The top 1% pay 25% of income tax - how much should they pay?

Marginal tax rates for the highest paid are above 50% - what do think is a fair rate?

People paying 50% tax are paying a minimum of 6-10 times the average person - how can you justify they aren't paying enough??

[Berties]

I didn't say it was, but why are people so keen to buy houses if it's not important to them??

Because I do not want to throw my wages for something which is not yours. If rent was vastly cheaper than buying, sure, but when renting a 2 bedroom apartment is still £400, it doesn't make sense. Put £400 month into your mortage.

If you didn't need to pay council tax if you were renting, then I guess that would be ok (council tax is £120 a month?)

[IronGiant]

Why shouldn't you pay council tax because you are renting?

[Badger0-0]

Sidicks,

I'm providing examples - how would you measure it??

That's actually a good question.

I'd suggest being better off is more about options.

What I'm getting at there is, if you ain't working, the likes of Sky is more a necessity, not a luxury.
How else do you pass your time?

I'm basically a lazy sod, but was told (in a roundabout way) that working is actually good for you, in that it broadens your horizons and stimulates you

But the link has been lost in some families, imo, because the parents aren't able to pass it on by example.
That is unforgivable and we are reaping what we've sown, in keeping a large pool of unemployed people with the aim of driving wages down.
Thatcher again.
(And if you don't think the recession under her reign was engineered, I'd suggest you are being naive)

I didn't say it was, but why are people so keen to buy houses if it's not important to them??

You mentioned home ownership first.
Why are people so keen?
Who knows?
I'd suggest the fact that Thatcher sold off our social housing for stupidly cheap prices, which meant that the house that your parents had lived in all their lives, could be sold off for a fat (short term) fortune probably started it.

That, coupled with the fact that we have little social housing left means renting is probably more expensive than buying, if you can get a mortgage without paying a 40% deposit, that is!.

And you wonder why I think the system is all wrong?

People paying 50% tax are paying a minimum of 6-10 times the average person - how can you justify they aren't paying enough??

The top level were paying 90% or more in the 70's.
I didn't see them running away then.

Open your eyes

It's not about tax.
It's about fairness.

[GAZBEROTTEN]

Im sorry but im going to have to disagree with sidlicks here. The most cheapest sky package is £20 per month including line rental and internet and the tv its self

Thats £5 per week not even anything worth worrying about. That helps pass some time and keeps people in doors or entertains them. Take that away from people and they will get bored and suicide rates go up, crime rates rise etc well you get the picture.

Increase minimum wage and you give people the motivation they need to go back to work. Right now minimum wage is a joke. It needs to be raised to the right ammount otherwise this just discourages people from working since they will only in most cases be in an even worse position than they where being unemployed. Don't forget theywould have to pax all relevant tax,pension, insurance then full rent,gas,electric,shopping. Reduce the average shopping,rent,pension,tax,insurance,gas,electric from that wage and you are mainly worse off.

Hardly rocket science sidlicks

[dejongj]

I think it makes more sense to reduce benefits if it doesn't "pay" going to work.

Also why can someone only do a job that is paid at the nmw? I think that is the point that is important.

[instigator]

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

Of course you are.
Because you'd rather keep it all to yourself and stuff everyone else, because society doesn't matter at all, as long as you're doing ok

Sure, just ask the Miliband brothers about their various tax dodges...

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

Sidicks,

That's actually a good question.

I'd suggest being better off is more about options.

And you don't think that there are more / better options available now than before?

What sort of options do you mean?

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

What I'm getting at there is, if you ain't working, the likes of Sky is more a necessity, not a luxury.
How else do you pass your time?

Taking advantage of the variety of government training would be most appropriate.

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

I'm basically a lazy sod, but was told (in a roundabout way) that working is actually good for you, in that it broadens your horizons and stimulates you

But the link has been lost in some families, imo, because the parents aren't able to pass it on by example.

I agree, I suspect you blame Thatcher though....

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

That is unforgivable and we are reaping what we've sown, in keeping a large pool of unemployed people with the aim of driving wages down.
Thatcher again.
(And if you don't think the recession under her reign was engineered, I'd suggest you are being naive)

Ah the first ever use of the newly titled 'Argies Law' on an Internet forum...

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

You mentioned home ownership first.
Why are people so keen?
Who knows?
I'd suggest the fact that Thatcher sold off our social housing for stupidly cheap prices, which meant that the house that your parents had lived in all their lives, could be sold off for a fat (short term) fortune probably started it.

Twice in one post - congratulations...

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

That, coupled with the fact that we have little social housing left means renting is probably more expensive than buying, if you can get a mortgage without paying a 40% deposit, that is!.

You might like to blame those people with numerous houses.....

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

And you wonder why I think the system is all wrong?

The top level were paying 90% or more in the 70's.
I didn't see them running away then.

Really? I thought there was plenty of evidence that says otherwise.

Tax take increased when the top rates reduced if I remember correctly...

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

Open your eyes

Open your eyes - equity of opportunity has never been better - too many people not prepared to make sacrifices and expect others to support them, that's the problem!

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

It's not about tax.
It's about fairness.

Fairness?

How can you regard someone paying 20+ times as much income tax as someone on the average wage despite earning only 6 times as much as in anyway insufficient or 'unfair'...


Sidicks

[Cloverleaf]

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

Of course you are.
Because you'd rather keep it all to yourself and stuff everyone else, because society doesn't matter at all, as long as you're doing ok

Of course I would rather keep more of what i earn, than see it confiscated and given to people who are too lazy/too thick to get a job.

Doh !

How much of your income do you voluntarily give away on top of your income tax then ?

What's that ? You don't ? Oh, how selfish of you. stuff everyone else then as long as you are doing ok.....

[Cloverleaf]

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

Sidicks,



That's actually a good question.

I'd suggest being better off is more about options.

What I'm getting at there is, if you ain't working, the likes of Sky is more a necessity, not a luxury.
How else do you pass your time?

I'm basically a lazy sod, but was told (in a roundabout way) that working is actually good for you, in that it broadens your horizons and stimulates you

But the link has been lost in some families, imo, because the parents aren't able to pass it on by example.
That is unforgivable and we are reaping what we've sown, in keeping a large pool of unemployed people with the aim of driving wages down.
Thatcher again.
(And if you don't think the recession under her reign was engineered, I'd suggest you are being naive)



You mentioned home ownership first.
Why are people so keen?
Who knows?
I'd suggest the fact that Thatcher sold off our social housing for stupidly cheap prices, which meant that the house that your parents had lived in all their lives, could be sold off for a fat (short term) fortune probably started it.

That, coupled with the fact that we have little social housing left means renting is probably more expensive than buying, if you can get a mortgage without paying a 40% deposit, that is!.

And you wonder why I think the system is all wrong?



The top level were paying 90% or more in the 70's.
I didn't see them running away then.

Open your eyes

It's not about tax.
It's about fairness.

Oh dear.

The old "it's all Thatchers fault" . 30 years later . I would have hoped that some people would think of something a bit more up to date and original, particularly as we have had 13 years of Labour Government in the meantime.


Actually, there was a massive outflow of tax exiles back in the 70's. Why would anyone stay here and see 90% of their hard earned taken away ? What is the point of working at that level of tax ?

As soon as the the top rate was reduced, tax receipts actually increased - that is the reality that the left never seem to grasp. There has to be an incentive for people to take risks and work hard.

Anyone not understanding that needs to seriously wake up and smell the coffee, rather than indulging in envy and spite towards those who have more than themselves.

[instigator]

Originally Posted by Cloverleaf

Oh dear.

The old "it's all Thatchers fault" . 30 years later . I would have hoped that some people would think of something a bit more up to date and original, particularly as we have had 13 years of Labour Government in the meantime.

Actually, there was a massive outflow of tax exiles back in the 70's. Why would anyone stay here and see 90% of their hard earned taken away ? What is the point of working at that level of tax ?

As soon as the the top rate was reduced, tax receipts actually increased - that is the reality that the left never seem to grasp. There has to be an incentive for people to take risks and work hard.

Anyone not understanding that needs to seriously wake up and smell the coffee, rather than indulging in envy and spite towards those who have more than themselves.

But what if I'm lazy and don't want to work? Why can't we have equality?

I also want a rad games console...

Anyone find the recent news that children are starting school and crapping themselves in classroom cause parents don't potty train them? That's funny innit?

[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by instigator

Anyone find the recent news that children are starting school and crapping themselves in classroom cause parents don't potty train them? That's funny innit?

Too busy giving them expensive iphones

Maybe there needs to be a potty training app

[HydroSpook]

In principle I agree with the NMW, but having worked for a few years in a Jobcentre saw that it's introduction brought with it a stigma attached to working for something with the word 'minimum' attached to it. Prior to NMW people were willing to apply for and accept jobs in 'low' paid fields.
After it's inception some people refused to work for minimum wage and expected to walk into a job a few pounds an hour over the rate of NMW despite previously working in a similar role that due to NMW had the hourly rate considerably increased.

My first job after uni was for Group Four Security, working at an airport for £2.25 per hour. The same job now is paid £6.08 per hour.

Those on NMW haven't had to suffer a pay freeze over the last few years whereas as those who are just slightly above it, have and therefore in real terms are slightly less well off.

[instigator]

Originally Posted by HydroSpook

In principle I agree with the NMW, but having worked for a few years in a Jobcentre saw that it's introduction brought with it a stigma attached to working for something with the word 'minimum' attached to it. Prior to NMW people were willing to apply for and accept jobs in 'low' paid fields.
After it's inception some people refused to work for minimum wage and expected to walk into a job a few pounds an hour over the rate of NMW despite previously working in a similar role that due to NMW had the hourly rate considerably increased.

My first job after uni was for Group Four Security, working at an airport for £2.25 per hour. The same job now is paid £6.08 per hour.

Those on NMW haven't had to suffer a pay freeze over the last few years whereas as those who are just slightly above it, have and therefore in real terms are slightly less well off.

Wage for the Glorification of Homeland?

[gazbarber]

A question for anyone with the stats at hand, does inflation rise disproportionally when NMW rises (over years when it doesn't)?

I suspect the effect of minimum wage increases the costs of goods and services, including housing and food. Much like QE it adds money to the system that needs to be absorbed, ultimately meaning those on fixed income (pensioners and some benefits) worse off and everyone else likely standing still.

[neilios]

Originally Posted by instigator

Sure, just ask the Miliband brothers about their various tax dodges...

Has your record got stuck,stuck,stuck,stuck....

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Cloverleaf

And who are you to judge what I can afford ? 14K is a lot of money to me, which I can ill afford to give away.

I am being robbed. Bent over, and royally ****** up the ****.

you strike me as right cup half empty type of bloke, whereas Badger clearly is cup half full type , ie he doesnt complain about his tax deductions.Anyone who is making upwards of 70k should be damned pleased instead of complaining they are being ****ed up the arse, bearing in mind the vast majority are far worse off

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

you strike me as right cup half empty type of bloke, whereas Badger clearly is cup half full type , ie he doesnt complain about his tax deductions.

Anyone who is making upwards of 70k should be damned pleased instead of complaining they are being ****ed up the arse, bearing in mind the vast majority are far worse off

Nothing to stop the rest applying for those same jobs....

[neilios]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Nothing to stop the rest applying for those same jobs....

What a load of old cobblers...

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Nothing to stop the rest applying for those same jobs....

....and whats the likelihood of them getting it and who does the jobs they currently do? Fairly pointless comment isnt it?

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by neilios

What a load of old cobblers...

Why?

You mean because they don't have the relevant training or expertise?

Again, nothing to stop them making sacrifices to improve themselves to allow them to apply....

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

....and whats the likelihood of them getting it and who does the jobs they currently do? Fairly pointless comment isnt it?

Not at all - according to you, if lots of (suitably qualified) people applied for these jobs then the costs would reduce.

Plenty of people waiting to take other vacancies as they become available - you keep telling me that all these unemployed people aren't lazy and want to work....

Sidicks

[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Why?

You mean because they don't have the relevant training or expertise?

Again, nothing to stop them making sacrifices to improve themselves to allow them to apply....

Mean while back in the real world the job will have been taken