Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
The Benefit Bill today takes £ Eight billion away from Working people scratching a living..........
.....and awards Eight thousand millionaires £ Three billion Tax cuts......where is the justice in this ?
It not only further tarnishes the nasty party but also the unelectable Lib / Dems.
Clegg`s history of capitulations to Cameron`s policies are adding up......don`t forget the Tuition Fees
promise........the public will not.....
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
Usual load of Bo--oks.
Defined =Rent minus Greed.
Or Rent minus EXTRA thrown on top because housing benefit is paid direct to landlord.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
What a shambles the co olition is getting into
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry:
"Rent controls - that old bogie was discredited back in the 70's. Those of you who want more and more power and control in the hands of politicians or quangoes need your heads examined."
Who would pay for all this? To have my head examined won't go on my bill.
And what if I pass the examination?
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
you would get a pat on the head and a mars bar alex.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No answers then GaryC - #2002 as usual bo--ocks from you.
No chance there
Alexander
Reg - what planet are you on? It certainly isn't earth.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i believe reg is making the point that two thirds of the so called "skivers" are actually working for a living.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
If you work for a living then you are not a skiver Howard.
The point is that no-one working should be on benefits - these should only be a safety net, temporary in respect of the healthy unemployed.
The government should be phasing out completely in work benefits.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
I'll agree with Keith that this coalition is useless, but for different reasons I suspect.
I'm sure Keith is aware that the highest rate his beloved previous govt taxed folk was 40%, the man from Mars might argue this cobbled together bunch are actually attemting to close the gap.
But they're fools, until tax is cut for everybody we're going nowhere fast.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
alex in the telegraph makes the point better than i can.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
Hurray, at last we can agree.
"The point is that no-one working should be on benefits"
That's right. They should be paid a decent Living (not minimum) Wage.
If the employer (business) cannot operate or sustain his business and pay this Living Wage then any government should supplement the employer, until such times as he can sustain his business and pay this Living Wage.
Win Win all round.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
I hear "living wage" quite a lot - what is it?
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
About double what most of the self-employed earn, David.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Good point Peter, I'd seriously like to hear a definition though as to what a living wage comprises.
Rent/mortgage - if so what type of property?
Car/petrol - see above.
Food - see above
Booze?
Fags?
SKY?
Mobile phone?
Cinema?
Holidays?
I know plenty of self employed that go without most of those to some degree, in a lot of cases paying staff more than they earn themselves. I'm sure you could name some too Peter.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
does anyone else hear the faint sound of violins playing in the background?
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Now that I am now out of self employment and employed once more, we are starting to plan our first holiday since September 2004.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Howard, it's the self-employed who are expected to foot the bill for the living wage for everyone else. Small businesses employ the majority of the private sector workforce.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - a totally nutty idea leading to higher deficits and higher taxation.
Lower tax is the best and only way along with supply-side reforms that will help create more jobs and wealth leading to higher incomes. History and experience demonstrates that.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
There seems to be a whale of a difference between sugaring a pill, and a saccharine tablet.
On the one hand, a little sweetness applied to a medicine, the bitter ingredients of which will effect a cure, is a positive way of encouraging and promoting health.
On the other hand, the application of a sweet pill that is saccharine through and through, and which contains no active health bringing ingredient, can only spread disease and ill-health:Think Harry Lime and his wheeze to make Quinine go further.
We all know, that many large successful businesses that operate within our economy contrive to pay no tax whatsoever within our economy and we here hear how wonderful that is and how lowering the top-rate of tax would help regenerate our economy. With so much sweetness around we yet search in vain for the effective ingredient, the medicine, the cure for our ills.
Instead of seeing an improvement in the patient we are yet again advised that another 'bleed' is in order, or that the other leg will have to go.
For certain, we all know that a body without limbs will be in less need of so much blood, so the bleeding and amputations go hand in hand, and yet who is it that stands back to consider whether the patient will ever, when cured, be able to resume his piano, violin or trumpet playing. Never mind whether he will ever be able to care for himself in general terms. Although we are pressed to undergo stomach stapling and much else to reduce the need for sustenance. Although, just how the patient, upon discharge, is to come by the least sustenance is not considered to be the concern of the bleeder or the surgeon.
It strikes me that the professionals, on being presented with the patient, dive in and apply only the treatments, medicines and cures they are trained to use. How reassuring for the owner of an Aston Martin who has only the enthusiasm of the village carter and farrier to call upon.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Tom, even under the present complexity of company tax law it is not possible for a multinational to arrange its affairs so as to avoid tax altogether. It is however possible for it to set up its corporate structure so as to pay all or most of its tax in low-tax jurisdictions by using various perfectly legal but morally dubious techniques. The best way to encourage good citizenship in companies operating here and to discourage avoidance is to reduce tax rates so that the cost of the complex operations required to avoid tax are not worth it.
Time and time and time again it has been demonstrated that lowering tax rates increases tax yield.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
