Whitey Grandad Posted 8 December, 2012 Share Posted 8 December, 2012 Because we live in a society with rules, structures and history, it is not possible to just 'earn your own money'. Your economic decisions happen in a context. In the UK's case, that context is a functioning stable state with infrastructure and education system and a police force etc. They all contribute to an individual 'earning his own money'. Therefore, to want to keep all your own money and not pay tax is greedy - it forces others to pay more tax. HTH. Whatever you may think, it cannot possibly be 'greedy' to aspire to earn more money and keep a reasonable proportion of it. Greed is when you want to take money away from somebody else so you can have an easier life yourself. Some call it sponging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 8 December, 2012 Share Posted 8 December, 2012 Greed is simply taking more than you need, its as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintfully Posted 8 December, 2012 Share Posted 8 December, 2012 I think what people want (I do) is a sense of fairness and transparency, I would be happy to pay more for means testing and a higer taxation for improved public services without hestitation BUT the beveridge report was not designed for the different kind of poverty and situations we find ourselves in now, the social welfare system is like an old house with bits added on and on, pull it down and start again. We must make work pay. We must build social welfare housing that will always be the taxpayers BUT will always house the most relevant applicant and it must always be the tenants house until they are ready to move on ie secure housing. Means testing for ALL recipients of benfits regardless of how much it costs, Britishness is all about a sense of fair play. Sense of entiltlement and idleness DOES exist and excusing it is worse the person doing it themselves, we can all think of someone who should be working but does not want to or feels to actually do work and still claim, lets not kid ourselves the system has got weak due to poltitical parties being afraid to touch it as its a hot potato and some recipients have taken advantage of that over the years. The welfare system has to stay but it has to reinvent itself. Wouldn't disagree with much of that. But is the welfare system our countries biggest problem? Nope, its a lack of demand for our goods and services thats killing us - and demand is created by putting money in peoples pockets. I suggest we look more toward how we can raise low pay and keep the cash we generate in the country. Ie. not let it pour out in the form of untaxed profits for multinationals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 8 December, 2012 Share Posted 8 December, 2012 Greed is simply taking more than you need, its as simple as that. There's a big difference between taking and earning. That's what this debate is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 8 December, 2012 Share Posted 8 December, 2012 Wouldn't disagree with much of that. But is the welfare system our countries biggest problem? Nope, its a lack of demand for our goods and services thats killing us - and demand is created by putting money in peoples pockets. I suggest we look more toward how we can raise low pay and keep the cash we generate in the country. Ie. not let it pour out in the form of untaxed profits for multinationals. Raising low pay is difficult to do as taxes have to be paid to pay for them and that makes the people paying for them poorer, big business has a part to play in all this but its seperate issue from citizens not working or claiming whilst working, opportunistic behaviour by Labour for that (I can not blame them) as they are part of this issue as well, this is a far bigger issue than party politics and petty point scoring by some ppe Oxbridge/LSE/UnLondon career graduate politicians (Yes Berger you) does not help at all, cross party talks, not 5 year plans, that are white elephants, the right and left have to all agree on the social welfare plan for the next 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 8 December, 2012 Share Posted 8 December, 2012 Whatever you may think, it cannot possibly be 'greedy' to aspire to earn more money and keep a reasonable proportion of it. Greed is when you want to take money away from somebody else so you can have an easier life yourself. Some call it sponging. You don't even understand what greed is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 8 December, 2012 Share Posted 8 December, 2012 There's a big difference between taking and earning. That's what this debate is all about. But some people nowadays believe they are not taking they are earning on benefits, some I know call it payday and are very quick to state its their right and entitlement to which they are correct but it does not make it morally right does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 8 December, 2012 Share Posted 8 December, 2012 I will add I have been a Labour Party member for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stain Posted 8 December, 2012 Share Posted 8 December, 2012 I will add I have been a Labour Party member for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 December, 2012 Share Posted 8 December, 2012 There's a big difference between taking and earning. That's what this debate is all about. But some people have to 'take' in order to supplement what they earn. I think I heard that 60% of the people affected by cuts to welfare benefits are people who ARE in work. In other words, the taxpayer is actually subsidising some employers by paying for these welfare benefits BECAUSE the employers pay such **** poor wages. Take that to its logical conclusion and it's easy to see that the taxpayer is, in effect, lining the pockets of employers and shareholders. Hence the drive for a 'living wage' as opposed to a minimum wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 8 December, 2012 Share Posted 8 December, 2012 Why is that funny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 8 December, 2012 Share Posted 8 December, 2012 But some people have to 'take' in order to supplement what they earn. I think I heard that 60% of the people affected by cuts to welfare benefits are people who ARE in work. In other words, the taxpayer is actually subsidising some employers by paying for these welfare benefits BECAUSE the employers pay such **** poor wages. Take that to its logical conclusion and it's easy to see that the taxpayer is, in effect, lining the pockets of employers and shareholders. Hence the drive for a 'living wage' as opposed to a minimum wage. You have to look into what benefits they are claiming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 8 December, 2012 Share Posted 8 December, 2012 You don't even understand what greed is. I know what it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 9 December, 2012 Share Posted 9 December, 2012 But some people have to 'take' in order to supplement what they earn. I think I heard that 60% of the people affected by cuts to welfare benefits are people who ARE in work. In other words, the taxpayer is actually subsidising some employers by paying for these welfare benefits BECAUSE the employers pay such **** poor wages. Take that to its logical conclusion and it's easy to see that the taxpayer is, in effect, lining the pockets of employers and shareholders. Hence the drive for a 'living wage' as opposed to a minimum wage. This is exactly right. We have decided to set a minimum wage that employers have to pay, and then by the very nature of topping up that wage, are admitting that it is set too low. All we are doing is subsidising Tesco, B&Q, ect's payroll costs and these Companies post millions of pounds in profit. By setting a minimum wage we are giving Companies a benchmark to pay their employees that is set at a level too low. I would imigane the Tesco's of the world, pay slightly above the minimum wage, saving themselves loads of money but looking like good employers who pay a reasonable wage (in that it's above the minimum). If you are going to set a minimum wage, then it needs to be set at a level that avoids the state topping it up. If there was no minimum wage the only benchmark they would have would be whether they could fill their vacancies, if they couldn't they would have had to increase the wage (forget about the present climate, I'm talking about the past 15 years). At the moment low paying employers are running a fixed price cartel. Ie, the price of their workers labour is fixed at a level and there is no competition to attract workers. I could except that, but only if the level was high enough that the state was not required to help out (disabled people, carers ect apart). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 9 December, 2012 Share Posted 9 December, 2012 (edited) My Ex wife who lives in Dubai claims benefit for two kids that she does not look after, she does not see, has not given any support in 10 years. Is not legally allowed to claim but does. Then when the Judge at the financial hearing during the divorce heard this basically said "So if she gets away with it she does nothing i will do about it" If that is not scrounging I don't know what is. NB I don't claim for them because we all live in the Philippines. Edited 9 December, 2012 by PhilippineSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 An excellent article: #access_token=AAADWQ6323IoBAGniLrRRv3yMVqlNN6PxbQwMlHC3KSWl5fd7Fq67XbOqKzrSS4bzsZCoeQOfkTZAbU0X2ElGbdYpg9f9PtuNlEzszxZAQZDZD&expires_in=6957"]http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/against-george-osbornes-war-on-the-poor-and-the-vile-stupidity-of-his-workers-vs-shirkers-narrative-8397330.html?fb_action_ids=4834589552975&fb_action_types=the-independent%3Astrongly_agree&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%224834589552975%22%3A383591741725308}&action_type_map={%224834589552975%22%3A%22the-independent%3Astrongly_agree%22}&action_ref_map=[]#access_token=AAADWQ6323IoBAGniLrRRv3yMVqlNN6PxbQwMlHC3KSWl5fd7Fq67XbOqKzrSS4bzsZCoeQOfkTZAbU0X2ElGbdYpg9f9PtuNlEzszxZAQZDZD&expires_in=6957 "Today, Labour unveils plans that move towards German-style rent controls. If combined with a council house building programme – creating jobs and stimulating the economy – the £21bn wasted on housing benefit (which should be renamed “landlord subsidy”) would be reduced. Similarly, the number of working families receiving working tax credits has risen by half since 2003 – because of a surge in low-paid jobs. A living wage would bring down spending on tax credits, and increasingly in-work benefits like housing benefit and council tax benefit. Improving workers’ rights stuck in the Victorian era would allow working people to demand better wages from their employers, too, at a time when big corporations sit on a £750bn cash mountain." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 10 December, 2012 Share Posted 10 December, 2012 Gets my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 17 January, 2013 Author Share Posted 17 January, 2013 270,000 have opted out already apparently... http://www.yourmoney.com/your-money/news/2234538/hmrc-says-270-000-opted-out-of-child-benefit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 25 March, 2013 Author Share Posted 25 March, 2013 I suppose this helps some people, but not all... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/20/budget-2013-childcare-excludes-families-need-help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 12 June, 2013 Author Share Posted 12 June, 2013 So it turns out that after all their b!tching and moaning about this, Labour would not reverse these changes. Ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now