The Last One
Comments
-
I just want you to stick to the point you started, not go off on a tangent.As for training you still havent made clear what your point is. I assume it is that we dont do enough and that the state should do more? Maybe clarify that and provide some backing evidence then we can have a sensible discussion.
You assume wrong because you didn't read the post, or maybe, you missed the point of the post or probably cba.
In previous posts and on the subject of capitalism, I have attempted to introduce a slightly more philosophical discussion and less laden with left or right wing politics, which I think is quite sensible. However, I am open to both the idea that this is A: Subjective and B: you are only going to entertain and respond to what you select.
I think that the subject of an education system that reflects the current and future needs of the UK is both beyond you but more importantly, out-with your scope, so you choose to dismiss it flippantly as if it has no value or relevance.
Banks were at the epicentre and were the architects of the 2008 crash. If the general public feel anger and resentment when it comes to the perceived non payment of taxes, when it is the general public who are bearing the brunt of their failings, then you can hardly blame them.
Although as you say it is more about perceived perception of not paying taxes, which is not borne out by the facts as I've shown. Part lf the problem stems from too many people who either dont understand the issues or have their own political agendas repeating the old 'X doesnt pay their fair share, somebody has to do something about it' without proper justification.
Now while you're here, define fair share of tax...
no i dont dispute what you are saying, i know plenty of self emplyed who will use v clever accountants to flout both the spirit and letter of the law.
But that doesnt make it right, Amz & Starbucks are 2 big examples of this, that it is within the letter of law does not make it fair or just (compared to the poor old sod on PAYE who has no choice)
but of course Mr Bompington i am aware that companies spend millions on tax experts, some ex HMRC, to avoid paying tax, the trouble is that for some reason many seem to applaud this, forgetting that for every £ avoided, it means a cut in local services, so that pot hole that sends you over the bars or wrecks your wheel, doesnt get fixed (but never mind, you can sue the council :idea:) or someone on PAYE paying more.
i think folk would be a little less anti banks etc if the head line was "bank pays 20% corp tax" instead of "bank pays nothing" by tax avoidance.
that their emplyees pay PAYE tax is irrelevant, bit like saying saying "but J Saville raised money for charity" so he becomes a good guy....no.
Steve0, do you know how this total bank tax take of 80bn is divided between PAYE and corporation tax etc ?0 -
There seems to be this idea that banks, Starbucks etc should pay more tax out of their own overstuffed corporate kitty.but of course Mr Bompington i am aware that companies spend millions on tax experts, some ex HMRC, to avoid paying tax, the trouble is that for some reason many seem to applaud this, forgetting that for every £ avoided, it means a cut in local services, so that pot hole that sends you over the bars or wrecks your wheel, doesnt get fixed (but never mind, you can sue the council :idea:) or someone on PAYE paying more.
i think folk would be a little less anti banks etc if the head line was "bank pays 20% corp tax" instead of "bank pays nothing" by tax avoidance.
I am I no way forgetting what it is taxes pay for - my own (relatively) ever-shrinking salary, for example - but you are perhaps forgetting where corporate taxes come from. The answer you have conveniently forgotten is "us". Now we would all (except for any investors, any savers, anyone who hopes to have a pension..) love the banks and other mega-corps to pay more tax and make less profit, but be careful what you wish for. The answer to excessive profits is real competition, not heavy-handed imposition of taxes that agile businesses will always find a way to avoid.0 -
doubtless true but agile companies get around competition too, energy industries for example or Starbucks... anyone noticed how many coffee chains there are in the high street? :shock:
and how would you introduce real competition without heavy handed regulation?
at mo they are having the best of both and no one is doing a thing about it other than defending them, the old defence was they ll all up sticks and leave..... now its they ll get around taxes and/or we the consumer will end up paying more.
funny isnt it that when it comes to other less glamorous jobs, these defences seem to evaporate.
anyway i m off down the pub... you have a great xmas.0 -
Either you're not listening or you just don't understand :roll:
I just want you to stick to the point you started, not go off on a tangent.As for training you still havent made clear what your point is. I assume it is that we dont do enough and that the state should do more? Maybe clarify that and provide some backing evidence then we can have a sensible discussion.
You assume wrong because you didn't read the post, or maybe, you missed the point of the post or probably cba.
In previous posts and on the subject of capitalism, I have attempted to introduce a slightly more philosophical discussion and less laden with left or right wing politics, which I think is quite sensible. However, I am open to both the idea that this is A: Subjective and B: you are only going to entertain and respond to what you select.
I think that the subject of an education system that reflects the current and future needs of the UK is both beyond you but more importantly, out-with your scope, so you choose to dismiss it flippantly as if it has no value or relevance.
Banks were at the epicentre and were the architects of the 2008 crash. If the general public feel anger and resentment when it comes to the perceived non payment of taxes, when it is the general public who are bearing the brunt of their failings, then you can hardly blame them.
Although as you say it is more about perceived perception of not paying taxes, which is not borne out by the facts as I've shown. Part lf the problem stems from too many people who either dont understand the issues or have their own political agendas repeating the old 'X doesnt pay their fair share, somebody has to do something about it' without proper justification.
Now while you're here, define fair share of tax...
no i dont dispute what you are saying, i know plenty of self emplyed who will use v clever accountants to flout both the spirit and letter of the law.
But that doesnt make it right, Amz & Starbucks are 2 big examples of this, that it is within the letter of law does not make it fair or just (compared to the poor old sod on PAYE who has no choice)
but of course Mr Bompington i am aware that companies spend millions on tax experts, some ex HMRC, to avoid paying tax, the trouble is that for some reason many seem to applaud this, forgetting that for every £ avoided, it means a cut in local services, so that pot hole that sends you over the bars or wrecks your wheel, doesnt get fixed (but never mind, you can sue the council :idea:) or someone on PAYE paying more.
i think folk would be a little less anti banks etc if the head line was "bank pays 20% corp tax" instead of "bank pays nothing" by tax avoidance.
that their emplyees pay PAYE tax is irrelevant, bit like saying saying "but J Saville raised money for charity" so he becomes a good guy....no.
Steve0, do you know how this total bank tax take of 80bn is divided between PAYE and corporation tax etc ?
I've just explained how there is far more to a companys tax contributuon than corporate tax and explained why the main reason for the low level of that one tax is attributable to a factor other than tax aboidance and you keep on repeating the same old unsubstantiated stuff that these companies are not paying their 'fair share' by avoiding corporate tax corporate tax.
And I just remembered another reason. They pay their staff well and salary costs are tax deductible, so guess what that does to taxable profits
The report above doesnt just deal with banks:; it was a survey of 100 large corporates. Forr the split between bank taxes, here you go:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.pwc.co.uk/assets/pdf/total-tax-contribution-of-the-uk-banking-sector-1909.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiBifLcjfPJAhXDTBQKHf7SB48QFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNE3MttRJJMKmOB1xMMoyY671sI2BA
Here's one for the wider financial services industry:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/economic-research-and-information/research-publications/Documents/Research-2014/Total-Tax-Contribution-2014.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiVwMbRj_PJAhUHPBQKHa_lAP0QFggfMAI&usg=AFQjCNF5HXItaHHb0fsjxUkmQSEv93tQEw
Main taxes borne directly by the sector are corporate tax, bank levy, employers NIC (not employees NI or income tax) and irrecoverable VAT. Substantial amounts.
There has been a shift over time to taxes other than corporate tax because profits fluctuate and make it a less reliable. Also stated govt policy is to use competitive CT rates to attract business and increase these other taxes. Based on the figures I see it is working.
Your claims that banks are paying no tax or even no corporate tax due to tax avoidance are simply not correct.
Same question as for Pinno - define a fair share of tax...is it what the law says or your arbitrary opinion?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Given companies cannot generally control who else competes with them, how on earth do agile companies get around competition? :roll: Do you actually work in business? Because your understanding of competition seem very limited.doubtless true but agile companies get around competition too, energy industries for example or Starbucks... anyone noticed how many coffee chains there are in the high street? :shock:
and how would you introduce real competition without heavy handed regulation?
at mo they are having the best of both and no one is doing a thing about it other than defending them, the old defence was they ll all up sticks and leave..... now its they ll get around taxes and/or we the consumer will end up paying more.
funny isnt it that when it comes to other less glamorous jobs, these defences seem to evaporate.
anyway i m off down the pub... you have a great xmas.
Energy companies are an exception. The vast majority of companies are in open competution. As for coffee chains, have you considered that the prevalence of the main players might be due in part to the fact that they are competing successfully?
Lets just face it, youre biased against big business."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Or, it could be that they have a different system of "financial planning" to independents, that the independents cannot compete with.As for coffee chains, have you considered that the prevalence of the main players might be due in part to the fact that they are competing successfully?
Another example is supermarkets who force out corner shop owners, then open up their own version.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
They are clearly giving people what they want though otherwise they wouldn't be so successful - tax avoidance alone isn't making them the monster that they are. If they are so evil and killing the small business, the answer is to boycott them, but then you'd have to pay more for your stuff..... can't have it both ways. Starbucks though, seriously people - three quid for a cup of coffee? Come on.CS7
Surrey Hills
What's a Zwift?0 -
A fair point.They are clearly giving people what they want though otherwise they wouldn't be so successful - tax avoidance alone isn't making them the monster that they are. If they are so evil and killing the small business, the answer is to boycott them, but then you'd have to pay more for your stuff..... can't have it both ways. Starbucks though, seriously people - three quid for a cup of coffee? Come on.
I would say that tax avoidance is a meaningful factor, therefore unfair though.
I despair for the future as all streets are monopolised by the big chains and you can't tell one city from another.
Unfortunately, I acknowledge that I am one of the few.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Given companies cannot generally control who else competes with them, how on earth do agile companies get around competition? :roll: Do you actually work in business? Because your understanding of competition seem very limited.doubtless true but agile companies get around competition too, energy industries for example or Starbucks... anyone noticed how many coffee chains there are in the high street? :shock:
and how would you introduce real competition without heavy handed regulation?
at mo they are having the best of both and no one is doing a thing about it other than defending them, the old defence was they ll all up sticks and leave..... now its they ll get around taxes and/or we the consumer will end up paying more.
funny isnt it that when it comes to other less glamorous jobs, these defences seem to evaporate.
anyway i m off down the pub... you have a great xmas.
Energy companies are an exception. The vast majority of companies are in open competution. As for coffee chains, have you considered that the prevalence of the main players might be due in part to the fact that they are competing successfully?
Lets just face it, youre biased against big business.
Now your the one who cant read my response was to Bompington, who was suggesting that real competition is the way forward and i gave two examples of so called competition that hasnt really worked.
Banks pre 2008 where held up as bastions of competition.... mmmm mmm :shock:
and there is always exceptions isnt there?
anti big business? not at all but when many large companies pay their staff peanuts, who then have to go to the state (ie the tax payer) for HB and WTC, whilst they reward themselves huge pay packets and post billions in profits? whilst doing all they can to avoid paying tax owed, then no, i dont feel all warm and cosy toward them.
You tell me why director pay is heading toward 200x their avg company salary? was this the case 25 years ago?0 -
You've just reinforced my point above, thanks
Given companies cannot generally control who else competes with them, how on earth do agile companies get around competition? :roll: Do you actually work in business? Because your understanding of competition seem very limited.doubtless true but agile companies get around competition too, energy industries for example or Starbucks... anyone noticed how many coffee chains there are in the high street? :shock:
and how would you introduce real competition without heavy handed regulation?
at mo they are having the best of both and no one is doing a thing about it other than defending them, the old defence was they ll all up sticks and leave..... now its they ll get around taxes and/or we the consumer will end up paying more.
funny isnt it that when it comes to other less glamorous jobs, these defences seem to evaporate.
anyway i m off down the pub... you have a great xmas.
Energy companies are an exception. The vast majority of companies are in open competution. As for coffee chains, have you considered that the prevalence of the main players might be due in part to the fact that they are competing successfully?
Lets just face it, youre biased against big business.
Now your the one who cant read my response was to Bompington, who was suggesting that real competition is the way forward and i gave two examples of so called competition that hasnt really worked.
Banks pre 2008 where held up as bastions of competition.... mmmm mmm :shock:
and there is always exceptions isnt there?
anti big business? not at all but when many large companies pay their staff peanuts, who then have to go to the state (ie the tax payer) for HB and WTC, whilst they reward themselves huge pay packets and post billions in profits? whilst doing all they can to avoid paying tax owed, then no, i dont feel all warm and cosy toward them.
You tell me why director pay is heading toward 200x their avg company salary? was this the case 25 years ago?
If you look at the facts (tricky I know ) you will find that big business are on average better payers than smaller businesses. You have this misplaced view that big business is out to screw their employees and do everything to avoid paying tax. Provide some evidence then for a change.
PS you will usually find that companies pay a market rate for jobs, that's why its cal,ed the job market. That what supply and demand is about. You still don't get that either."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If you can only argue your point by being arrogant and rude, and then failing to ans the points raised, then dont bother posting.0
-
Plenty of examples of big companies who pay poor wages under poor contract conditions. JJB sports? Tesco, Morrison's, ASDA. If a large company can save 50p per employee per hour, it adds up to a lot of money. I am not saying they do that necessarily but there's always a bean counter in the back room making these calculations. The whole Zero hours contract issue is testament to an employers market and reduced employment rights.
Stevo - you still haven't tackled the whole issue of the biggest subsidy of all - WTC's and HB. You cannot remove them as you haven't got higher enough wage/longer enough contracts to allow employees to pay their way without support. Of the millions receiving WTC's, most are likely to be paying £0 income tax.
If you want to raise the standard of living right across the board, then we need a comprehensive overhaul of the whole taxation system and a better distribution of wealth.
There are an estimated 100.000 people today who are classed as homeless. Waiting for temporary accommodation, not knowing what school their children are going to be in from one month to the next. People locked into living with their parents indefinitely or in sub-standard rented accommodation. These are inescapable truths which run against the grain of the apparently buoyant economic climate and the low unemployment levels.
Oh and successive administrations continually shift the goal posts making the unemployment figures rather questionable:
You are not declared as unemployed if:
You receive disability benefits yet you can work
You get carers allowance and you don't work but you could work.
You are on a zero hours contract and get sporadic work - enough not to qualify for benefits but not enough to live on.
You are part-time, receiving WTC's, Housing benefit and other benefits that the unemployed receive.
You are on income support.
You work more than 16 hours a week on a voluntary basis.
You work less than 16 hours a week and still qualify for some unemployment benefits.
you are in a work scheme receiving £10 extra on your dole money. (We have had a few of them).
You are currently serving a benefit sanction.
I would love to know how many people there are in work, on full-time contracts, not receiving benefits.
If you are not prepared to admit the failings of the current administration nor the problems we face because you have convinced yourself that everything is fine under this particular sun, then there is no way forward.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
^Xmas day post of the year. Chapeau.Ecrasez l’infame0
-
You ve patience, i ll give you that Pinno
pretty much all what you say, we ve told Steve0 before BUT he lacks compassion and doesnt have the ability to see beyond his blinkered cosy world, i wonder if there is a version of Christmas Carol for accountants ? lol!0 -
You ve patience, i ll give you that Pinno
pretty much all what you say, we ve told Steve0 before BUT he lacks compassion and doesnt have the ability to see beyond his blinkered cosy world, i wonder if there is a version of Christmas Carol for accountants ? lol!
A Christmas tariff ?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
a heart warming tale of Christmas Liquidity ?0
-
A Chrismas tax free bonus?
It's quite Dickensian when you think about it.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
very true!
A Christmas Poor House, something i think he d like restored? or A Christmas Deferred of tax liability ?0 -
What I do not understand is that a man who's career is helping companies from paying 'too much' tax tells us that the corporations are paying enough.
When he comes back, he can explain that one.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
i do not understand steve0s position, if the banks are of such a class leading benefit to the UK, then how come we borrowed 100s of billions to bail them out? money we are now very much struggling to pay back.
as for the 80bn tax take, he also seems to think that if these paye employees were not employed by banks, they not be paying any tax at all, what their employees pay is irrelevant if they, the banks, are using means and ways to avoid tax.
Would be a bit like taking the tax take of nhs staff from the total bill to call for more funding of this service, i doubt Steve0 would be keen on frigging the figures for this would he?0 -
Plenty of examples of big companies who pay poor wages under poor contract conditions. JJB sports? Tesco, Morrison's, ASDA. If a large company can save 50p per employee per hour, it adds up to a lot of money. I am not saying they do that necessarily but there's always a bean counter in the back room making these calculations. The whole Zero hours contract issue is testament to an employers market and reduced employment rights.
Stevo - you still haven't tackled the whole issue of the biggest subsidy of all - WTC's and HB. You cannot remove them as you haven't got higher enough wage/longer enough contracts to allow employees to pay their way without support. Of the millions receiving WTC's, most are likely to be paying £0 income tax.
If you want to raise the standard of living right across the board, then we need a comprehensive overhaul of the whole taxation system and a better distribution of wealth.
There are an estimated 100.000 people today who are classed as homeless. Waiting for temporary accommodation, not knowing what school their children are going to be in from one month to the next. People locked into living with their parents indefinitely or in sub-standard rented accommodation. These are inescapable truths which run against the grain of the apparently buoyant economic climate and the low unemployment levels.
Oh and successive administrations continually shift the goal posts making the unemployment figures rather questionable:
You are not declared as unemployed if:
You receive disability benefits yet you can work
A neighbour has lipedema. In the 30 years I have known her she has not worked nor sought work. I accept that her opportunities are more limited but she is intelligent enough to be of value to a lot of employers. She chooses though to remain on benefits.
You get carers allowance and you don't work but you could work.
A friend retired shortly before his 60th birthday. He had previously worked as much overtime as possible, sometimes working away from home. Upon his retirement, he was able to claim Carers Allowance due to his wife having MS, a condition she had suffered for the past 12 years.
You are on a zero hours contract and get sporadic work - enough not to qualify for benefits but not enough to live on.
I agree that zero hours contracts are unfair to those who don't want the flexibility they bring. However I do know people who find the arrangement suits them.
You are part-time, receiving WTC's, Housing benefit and other benefits that the unemployed receive.
I agree that WTC should be removed. People are content to work up to a certain amount and no more so that they don't lose WTC. It is wrong that people can be rewarded with WTC when they are refusing work.
You are on income support.
You work more than 16 hours a week on a voluntary basis.
I applaud anyone who works for a voluntary organisation to improve the lot of others. But if you do so full time, any benefit received would surely be a subsidy to that organisation so I see to a degree why such folk are excluded from unemployment figures.
You work less than 16 hours a week and still qualify for some unemployment benefits.
you are in a work scheme receiving £10 extra on your dole money. (We have had a few of them).
You are currently serving a benefit sanction.
I would love to know how many people there are in work, on full-time contracts, not receiving benefits.
If you are not prepared to admit the failings of the current administration nor the problems we face because you have convinced yourself that everything is fine under this particular sun, then there is no way forward.
I agree that everything isn't rosy. I have posted before that no government get all things right all of the time. I agree that all companies and all individuals should meet their full tax burden. But in my mind, the biggest thing holding this country back is the 'something for nothing' culture that is becoming all the more pervasive.0 -
Pinno's point was that all these people do not count towards the unemployment numbers.I agree that everything isn't rosy. I have posted before that no government get all things right all of the time. I agree that all companies and all individuals should meet their full tax burden. But in my mind, the biggest thing holding this country back is the 'something for nothing' culture that is becoming all the more pervasive.
Not the whys and why nots.
I think.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Pinno's point was that all these people do not count towards the unemployment numbers.I agree that everything isn't rosy. I have posted before that no government get all things right all of the time. I agree that all companies and all individuals should meet their full tax burden. But in my mind, the biggest thing holding this country back is the 'something for nothing' culture that is becoming all the more pervasive.
Not the whys and why nots.
I think.
Precisely. It wasn't 'leftie' or indeed righty bollox.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I agree that everything isn't rosy. I have posted before that no government get all things right all of the time. I agree that all companies and all individuals should meet their full tax burden. But in my mind, the biggest thing holding this country back is the 'something for nothing' culture that is becoming all the more pervasive.
What holds back this country is opportunity for those not born into it and benefit and tax traps, keeping people where they are, so, earn any extra whilst on wtc or HB and the state takes back that extra salary at best 70p in the pound and the councils will freeze HB whilst they calc the new rates payable, easier not to bother.
we ve 30m odd people who work in this country, so plenty of folk want to work and do so, if ALL benefit fraud was eliminated, it would make almost zero difference to our national debt.
But if there is a something for nothing culture, where does it spring from? MPs expenses? or director pay? maybe CEO's of nhs or councils paying themselves 6 figure salaries, not too mention bankers, who carry on awarding themselves huge bonuses whilst their companies should have folded.... thats some thing for nothing isn't ?0 -
Nope, just giving you the facts and telling things how I see them. Although some of the generalisations you'e come out with about tories for example - well Mr. Pot, meet Mr Kettle.If you can only argue your point by being arrogant and rude, and then failing to ans the points raised, then dont bother posting.
If you want to give up arguing on the facts, that's up to you."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The comment Bally made about voluntary sector may sound reasonable but having volunteered myself for a few days a week while unemployed I have seen another side. I volunteered in the conservation sector whilst looking for work. I was on the verge of changing careers to try and get into conservation. My volunteering.allowed.me.to.gain.experience.and knowledge, but above all got me known in the regional organization for that conservation charity. That got me an interview for a full time voluntary post. That would involve.signing on for all the benefits someone who's unemployed can.get whilst working for the charity. State subsidy of this charity undoubtedly but it was the only way to get into the sector for many people. It leads to work and counts as training since the charity ran training.courses recognised in the.sector.
I know this is a also off topic but sometimes volunteering is the only way to get on in some sectors. Take this away.and perhaps you'd have fewer routes into conservation and probably other sectors with charities.0 -
Nope, just giving you the facts and telling things how I see them. Although some of the generalisations you'e come out with about tories for example - well Mr. Pot, meet Mr Kettle.If you can only argue your point by being arrogant and rude, and then failing to ans the points raised, then dont bother posting.
If you want to give up arguing on the facts, that's up to you.
Going to answer the points raised or not? or more condescension instead
anyway, hope its not too late but i hope you had a great Xmas.0 -
Very eloquent but you're going off on a tangent. Not sure it is an attempt to divert from what was a pretty focused discussion, of you just can't stick to the point?Plenty of examples of big companies who pay poor wages under poor contract conditions. JJB sports? Tesco, Morrison's, ASDA. If a large company can save 50p per employee per hour, it adds up to a lot of money. I am not saying they do that necessarily but there's always a bean counter in the back room making these calculations. The whole Zero hours contract issue is testament to an employers market and reduced employment rights.
Stevo - you still haven't tackled the whole issue of the biggest subsidy of all - WTC's and HB. You cannot remove them as you haven't got higher enough wage/longer enough contracts to allow employees to pay their way without support. Of the millions receiving WTC's, most are likely to be paying £0 income tax.
If you want to raise the standard of living right across the board, then we need a comprehensive overhaul of the whole taxation system and a better distribution of wealth.
There are an estimated 100.000 people today who are classed as homeless. Waiting for temporary accommodation, not knowing what school their children are going to be in from one month to the next. People locked into living with their parents indefinitely or in sub-standard rented accommodation. These are inescapable truths which run against the grain of the apparently buoyant economic climate and the low unemployment levels.
Oh and successive administrations continually shift the goal posts making the unemployment figures rather questionable:
You are not declared as unemployed if:
You receive disability benefits yet you can work
You get carers allowance and you don't work but you could work.
You are on a zero hours contract and get sporadic work - enough not to qualify for benefits but not enough to live on.
You are part-time, receiving WTC's, Housing benefit and other benefits that the unemployed receive.
You are on income support.
You work more than 16 hours a week on a voluntary basis.
You work less than 16 hours a week and still qualify for some unemployment benefits.
you are in a work scheme receiving £10 extra on your dole money. (We have had a few of them).
You are currently serving a benefit sanction.
I would love to know how many people there are in work, on full-time contracts, not receiving benefits.
If you are not prepared to admit the failings of the current administration nor the problems we face because you have convinced yourself that everything is fine under this particular sun, then there is no way forward.
Not sure where I said everything was fine, although it is probably better than the alternatived. Also it does seem that more than one person on this thread seems to imagine I say things that I havent, or reads tòo into posts. If things are so bad here, why dont you live in continental Europe, as quite a few people here seem to think everything is just fine and the administrations are faultless over the channel? "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Nope, as explained above if people are deliberately going off the point because they cant argue the point, or just incapable of sticking to it then not sure why I should. It helps keep things on topic
Nope, just giving you the facts and telling things how I see them. Although some of the generalisations you'e come out with about tories for example - well Mr. Pot, meet Mr Kettle.If you can only argue your point by being arrogant and rude, and then failing to ans the points raised, then dont bother posting.
If you want to give up arguing on the facts, that's up to you.
Going to answer the points raised or not? or more condescension instead
anyway, hope its not too late but i hope you had a great Xmas.
Anyway you and Pinno still havent answered a very fundamental point I raised about defining a fair share of tax. Care to have a try? It is relevant to the issue."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's not the only thing I do. Although it would be more accurate to say it is more about making sure my employer does not pay too muchWhat I do not understand is that a man who's career is helping companies from paying 'too much' tax tells us that the corporations are paying enough.
When he comes back, he can explain that one.
This goes back to the old central point about what is a fair share of tax which nobody seems prepare to define or explain despite all the bleating on here (started by you) that companies dob't pay their fair share of the stuff. Can you see the obvious hole in your argument :roll:
I've always said that there is only one measure of a fair share and that's the law. If you want to define it another way, pease feel free to try, otherwise you have no point to make."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
