£26,000 and thats capped!

[guest1957]

I agree wholeheartedly, however everybody should pay their fair share. Warren Buffet is campaigning that the rich should pay their fair share. The trickle down effect doesn't seem to be working.

 

In the Times this morning Mitt Romney has a fortune of $250m yet he is charged a lower rate of tax than a postal worker. Fair?

 

Not at all, tax should be flat at the very least or progressive, as long as it is not excessively so. I think with the 40% higher rate tax we have in this country, we are not far off. I am not, however, a fan of the 50% rate or pushes to get it higher.

 

America needs to wake up and realise that unless they start paying sensible rates of tax they will not be able survive as a country under the huge debt burden.

[jimmyvonk]

On the BBC news this morning, they said that Graduate starting pay now averages £26k a year. (On which they have to pay Tax)

 

One wonders why they bother to get an education when the Government will hand them that tax free to do nothing with there lives except ****, smoke and booze...

 

Social security is now a millstone on the working people of the country and needs to be converted to a moneyless system - they should be receiving the basic needs in food tokens and government issue clothing - especially if they have never bothered to work a day in there life. Social security is now a lifestyle choice not the emergency protection it once was.

 

They should be embarassed to be claiming from the state, and should also be made to work 3 days a week at least on community improvement projects. For what I pay in tax I want my streets litter and graffiti free!

 

I'm sick to death of seeing work shy chavs in designer clothes, the latest mobile phone and a car - Me and my Wife both work full time in good jobs and couldn't afford all of that even if we wanted it!

 

Sorry, Bit of a rant but just don't think it's fair.

[keg]

You are right Jimmy, it's not a rant it makes perfect sense. The welfare state is there to provide a safety blanket not a living. Guest, it isn't fair but as I said earlier in this whole discussion it's based on the tax laws put in place by a country's respective parliament. Reading into this because the bulk of his income comes from investment funds it is taxed at a lower rate than normal earnings hence why he pays less than the male worker.

 

I assume the thinking behind this is that if he has these funds invested he has already paid tax on them when they were earnt and therefore should not pay tax again. If these funds are invested then one assumes that they are creating employment or jobs somewhere in the economy.

 

 

It's something I've never got my head around in this country. I work hard, pay my taxes, save, invest, and then get taxed again my savings.

[Dr W]

You'll also have to include Stamp duty, vat and inheritance tax

[guest1957]

You are right Jimmy, it's not a rant it makes perfect sense. The welfare state is there to provide a safety blanket not a living. Guest, it isn't fair but as I said earlier in this whole discussion it's based on the tax laws put in place by a country's respective parliament. Reading into this because the bulk of his income comes from investment funds it is taxed at a lower rate than normal earnings hence why he pays less than the male worker.

 

I assume the thinking behind this is that if he has these funds invested he has already paid tax on them when they were earnt and therefore should not pay tax again. If these funds are invested then one assumes that they are creating employment or jobs somewhere in the economy.

 

 

It's something I've never got my head around in this country. I work hard, pay my taxes, save, invest, and then get taxed again my savings.

 

The tax rate on investment income in the states is 15% I believe. I don't think there is any need for double taxation on income, however I am not adverse to taxation on income generated on income.

 

Inheritance tax on the othr hand is daylight robbery, but I feel that discussion would be going miles off topic!

 

You are right Jimmy, it's not a rant it makes perfect sense. The welfare state is there to provide a safety blanket not a living. Guest, it isn't fair but as I said earlier in this whole discussion it's based on the tax laws put in place by a country's respective parliament. Reading into this because the bulk of his income comes from investment funds it is taxed at a lower rate than normal earnings hence why he pays less than the male worker.

 

I assume the thinking behind this is that if he has these funds invested he has already paid tax on them when they were earnt and therefore should not pay tax again. If these funds are invested then one assumes that they are creating employment or jobs somewhere in the economy.

 

 

It's something I've never got my head around in this country. I work hard, pay my taxes, save, invest, and then get taxed again my savings.

 

The tax rate on investment income in the states is 15% I believe. I don't think there is any need for double taxation on income, however I am not adverse to taxation on income generated on income.

 

Inheritance tax on the othr hand is daylight robbery, but I feel that discussion would be going miles off topic!

[UKPoacher]

You are right Jimmy, it's not a rant it makes perfect sense. The welfare state is there to provide a safety blanket not a living. Guest, it isn't fair but as I said earlier in this whole discussion it's based on the tax laws put in place by a country's respective parliament. Reading into this because the bulk of his income comes from investment funds it is taxed at a lower rate than normal earnings hence why he pays less than the male worker.

 

I assume the thinking behind this is that if he has these funds invested he has already paid tax on them when they were earnt and therefore should not pay tax again. If these funds are invested then one assumes that they are creating employment or jobs somewhere in the economy.

 

 

It's something I've never got my head around in this country. I work hard, pay my taxes, save, invest, and then get taxed again my savings.

 

The thing that I find disturbing and I first became aware of it when working as a milkman thirty years ago, is that people who work and save are penalised at pension age compared to those who have never worked and never saved. Those who have ****** their dole up against the wall get more benefits than the ones who have put something away for a rainy day. So the workers have been taxed on their earnings, taxed on their savings and then penalised for having worked and saved.

[Laird Lugton]

The thing that I find disturbing and I first became aware of it when working as a milkman thirty years ago, is that people who work and save are penalised at pension age compared to those who have never worked and never saved. Those who have pi$$ed their dole up against the wall get more benefits than the ones who have put something away for a rainy day. So the workers have been taxed on their earnings, taxed on their savings and then penalised for having worked and saved.

 

Spot on.

 

My Grandfather worked into his seventies, he and his wife owned their own home and paid their way. A few years after his wife passed away he could no longer fend for himself so he was placed in a retirement home. The state used the money from his savings and the value of his home to pay for his care.

 

Now I have don't have any problem with the state using these assets to pay for care. However had he bought nice cars, gone on cruises and frittered his money away or lived his life on benefits then the state would have paid for his care regardless in the same home. The question is that fair?

 

I think it's not fair and their should be some recognition of the fact that you've always paid your way.

[pimpkiller]

Is anyone in receipt of any benefit on here besides job-seekers? Im always surprised how much money perfectly healthy people who are working get like income support, child benefit rent/council tax. Whilst someone who is disabled gets some money then has to pay everything.

[leeds chimp]

Is anyone in receipt of any benefit on here besides job-seekers? Im always surprised how much money perfectly healthy people who are working get like income support, child benefit rent/council tax. Whilst someone who is disabled gets some money then has to pay everything.

 

Yes I/we get help thanks

[shaun4860]

Is anyone in receipt of any benefit on here besides job-seekers? Im always surprised how much money perfectly healthy people who are working get like income support, child benefit rent/council tax. Whilst someone who is disabled gets some money then has to pay everything.

 

 

Yes thanks,

 

[jasper3]

I wish I could... works really quiet at the moment, but being self employed i can't get a penny

I don't mind helping people who really need it, thats what the system was set up for...

 

but the system really needs to be sorted... I hate to think my tax money goes to support people who are just plain lazy

 

I also believe the government and banks should help people start thier own buisiness..and i mean help, like lower tax rates and rent for the 1st couple of years,

[kdubya]

 

 

but the system really needs to be sorted... I hate to think my tax money goes to support people who are just plain lazy

 

 

 

You dont like your money going to " the lazy" fair enough, but then I dont like my tax going to support people via tax credits due to employers paying so little that they still need benefit ( yes regardless what its called its benefit like it or not) funny thing is no one has a go at those who use the system to keep wages low knowing that the state (ah thats market forces then ) will make the wages up for them, but yet people are more than willing to have a go at those who use the system by not working and claiming their entitlement still there are plenty of good well paid jobs about eh! ask the 1000 drivers just laid off from petroplus!their reply may have a size 10 boot in it.

 

 

 

Cheers KW

Edited January 26, 2012 by kdubya

[pegasus bridge]

Is anyone in receipt of any benefit on here besides job-seekers? Im always surprised how much money perfectly healthy people who are working get like income support, child benefit rent/council tax. Whilst someone who is disabled gets some money then has to pay everything.

 

the only benefit my family get is child benefit, next year i will losing it, i am only just over the threshhold, my wife does not work (she gave up when we had our second child - i would rather be a few hundred quid a month worse off than pay some dis-interested 18 yr old to text her mates whilst my child amuses themselves), my wife now runs (not paid) two playgroups in a rural area, she is on various fundraising commitees in the village, and spends quality supportive time with my children.

 

i am not happy at losing this 'benefit' when i see lots of others enjoying it (and paying nothing in) - but, as painful as this is - i understand the bigger picture that the country cannot afford to keep spending. its got to stop, and its going to be tough doing it.

[oscarsdad]

the only benefit my family get is child benefit, next year i will losing it, i am only just over the threshhold, my wife does not work (she gave up when we had our second child - i would rather be a few hundred quid a month worse off than pay some dis-interested 18 yr old to text her mates whilst my child amuses themselves), my wife now runs (not paid) two playgroups in a rural area, she is on various fundraising commitees in the village, and spends quality supportive time with my children.

 

i am not happy at losing this 'benefit' when i see lots of others enjoying it (and paying nothing in) - but, as painful as this is - i understand the bigger picture that the country cannot afford to keep spending. its got to stop, and its going to be tough doing it.

 

This is the ridiculous new change...I earn just over the threshold so if my mrs and I have kids then we would never get any child benefit. However if both of us earned just under the threshold giving a total income of about double what mine is, we would get child benefit! Ridiculous.

[pegasus bridge]

This is the ridiculous new change...I earn just over the threshold so if my mrs and I have kids then we would never get any child benefit. However if both of us earned just under the threshold giving a total income of about double what mine is, we would get child benefit! Ridiculous.

 

Its nuts!! its been hinted that it will be sense checked before it gets rolled out, i hope it does. after tax, with one parent earning just over the threshold, my standard of living would only marginally be better off than someone enjoying 26K in benefits.

[BRAD1927]

That sir is called employment, i take it you are going to pay them for the work? minimum wage? unless of course you are going to pay them JUST their benefits?

 

slave labour it is then!

 

If there were that many jobs around that everyone on long term benefits has to work then surely that would have solved the problem

 

 

 

 

Some people cant see past their own prejudices

 

 

 

Not prejudice and definatley not slave labour.

 

The suggestion is quite simple, there are business's, councils etc out there that can not afford to employ any more staff due to financial constraint.

 

The suggestion is that instead of the lazy scumbags sitting on there ****'s reaping in the free cash the money would have to be earn't and a large picking pot available for local good causes, councils buisness's to get free labour. The individuals would still get their money from the government but on the understanding that they repay society for what they are getting.

 

SIMPLES!!!!

[pegasus bridge]

Not prejudice and definatley not slave labour.

 

The suggestion is quite simple, there are business's, councils etc out there that can not afford to employ any more staff due to financial constraint.

 

The suggestion is that instead of the lazy scumbags sitting on there ****'s reaping in the free cash the money would have to be earn't and a large picking pot available for local good causes, councils buisness's to get free labour. The individuals would still get their money from the government but on the understanding that they repay society for what they are getting.

 

SIMPLES!!!!

 

 

here here!!! you could argue that we are all 'slave labour' - i dont know anyone who works because they just want to - people work because they have to! people work to survive, we need to break down the 'expectation; culture which has been a sad side effect of the welfare state (yes not all people on benefits are like this, but the % is considerable), the work ethic has got to be reinstated, the welfare state needs to be a safety net, not a reclining sofa with beer can holder.

[Gimlet]

Is anyone in receipt of any benefit on here besides job-seekers? Im always surprised how much money perfectly healthy people who are working get like income support, child benefit rent/council tax. Whilst someone who is disabled gets some money then has to pay everything.

 

No one who is in full time paid employment and paying income tax should receive benefits of any kind whatsoever. It makes no economic sense to pay benefits to tax payers. Far better to reduce their tax burden so they can support themselves.

For the first and propably the last time in my life I agree with something Nick Clegg has said. Increase the tax threshold to £10,000. In fact I'd make it £12,000 with tax relief on mortgages and pensions and council tax exemptions etc until the low paid are able to live on their limited incomes without resorting to the momumental bureaucratic waste of doling out benefits. Taking £1 from someone in tax, passing it through various government departments until it is worth 20p then handing it back with a pat on the head to the person who earned it in the first place as a 'benefit' is lunacy.

Thousands of people are pointlessly employed at public expense playing pass-the-parcel with money that should never have been collected in the first place. Sack them and let them take their chances in the real world. And with the money saved reduce taxes still further. And introduce a smooth rising scale for income tax so that huge hikes in liability at arbitary points, which are a terrible disincentive, are ironed out. I am self-employed and I have deliberately turned away work that would have pushed me into a punative tax bracket. Utterly crazy.

[Diceman]

I agree wholeheartedly, however everybody should pay their fair share. Warren Buffet is campaigning that the rich should pay their fair share. The trickle down effect doesn't seem to be working.

 

In the Times this morning Mitt Romney has a fortune of $250m yet he is charged a lower rate of tax than a postal worker. Fair?

 

From what I have read Romney is paying 15% tax (the upper US rate for investments) on the income from his £250m investments, which has already been taxed via corporation tax at 35%. And even before that, the money he earned to then invest would also have been taxed as he earned it originally. I suspect his contribution to the American tax pot is pretty substantially more than the smash-the-rich headlines make out.

[pimpkiller]

Gimlet - I think thats a very good reply / idea. The very high cost of living in this country makes the level of wages very low, if cost of housing / living was cheap there wouldnt be such a problem. Thats also why being on benefits is so well paid if you are willing to do nothing, they say a person / child needs X amount to live on and somewhere to live and they cant afford bills so is given relatively a lot of money. One of the major problems is this X amount to live on and the cut offs for example, A couple each earn just under £20K each and get benefits but if one person gets over £20K they both get nothing, so you could have a couple bringing in £21K and get nothing but another couple bring in just under £40K and get "help", mental.

[jasper3]

You dont like your money going to " the lazy" fair enough, but then I dont like my tax going to support people via tax credits due to employers paying so little that they still need benefit ( yes regardless what its called its benefit like it or not) funny thing is no one has a go at those who use the system to keep wages low knowing that the state (ah thats market forces then ) will make the wages up for them, but yet people are more than willing to have a go at those who use the system by not working and claiming their entitlement still there are plenty of good well paid jobs about eh! ask the 1000 drivers just laid off from petroplus!their reply may have a size 10 boot in it.

 

 

 

Cheers KW

[/quote

 

Well !! I did say I don't mind helping people who need it..surely that would be obvious that the lorry drivers would fall into that group of people..

 

as for companies paying the minimum wage..i take it you have never run a company ?

I would have thought it better to give two people a chance of work than pay one more and sack the other,

 

why should a man start a company and not make a profit for himself..he is the one who has taken the chance, he is the one who has created a job for someone..not all company owners drive around in big cars and live in big houses...

 

some can only offer the mimimum wage..at least this gives an oppertunity for some people to earn thier own money, and if the government needs to help..so be it, at least they are helping people who want to get out and work..the company will be paying enough taxes to cover that in most cases anyway.

 

then you say "but yet people are more than willing to have a go at those who use the system by not working and claiming their entitlement...Ummmm yea... if they genuinly cant work through health or really can't find a job because of location.. then i have no problem ,But !!!! why are we entitled to just stay at home and live on other peoples earnings...