jam1e Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Facial tatoos - 100% tax or more likely on benefits so zero benefits. 75% tax on sky tv installed in council housing. 75% tax on leggings if the woman is bigger than size 12 in an attempt to prevent us from seeing such a sight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jam1e Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 I'd put road tax up by 1000% for people over 70, as they just clog up the roads driving at half the speed limit!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) Tidy up the ****ty mess tax. Raise a cool £10 million as a starter for ten. Get the wasters that sit on their ***** all day to clean up the filth in the countryside in return for their dole money. Ask the environment agency to evaluate the benefits and if they happen to report a negative response slash their funding by half. Edited March 24, 2014 by Whitebridges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Tidy up the ****ty mess tax. Raise a cool £10 million as a starter for ten. Get the wasters that sit on their ***** all day to clean up the filth in the countryside in return for their dole money. Ask the environment agency to evaluate the benefits and if they happen to report a negative response slash their funding by half. Actually I see nothing wrong with workfare. Why shouldn't those who are receiving benefits because they are unemployed and who are able to do so, work for their money? Provided it is in proportion and doesn't amount to slave labour or keep them from making reasonable efforts to find permanent work. Working with other people, possibly learning something useful and structuring your time can only be a good thing when you're looking for work. Receiving financial assistance from your fellow citizens when you're down on your luck should be one of the privileges that comes from living in a civilised society, it shouldn't be a right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Actually I see nothing wrong with workfare. Why shouldn't those who are receiving benefits because they are unemployed and who are able to do so, work for their money? Provided it is in proportion and doesn't amount to slave labour or keep them from making reasonable efforts to find permanent work. Working with other people, possibly learning something useful and structuring your time can only be a good thing when you're looking for work. Receiving financial assistance from your fellow citizens when you're down on your luck should be one of the privileges that comes from living in a civilised society, it shouldn't be a right. Couldn't have put it better myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Actually I see nothing wrong with workfare. Why shouldn't those who are receiving benefits because they are unemployed and who are able to do so, work for their money? Provided it is in proportion and doesn't amount to slave labour or keep them from making reasonable efforts to find permanent work. Working with other people, possibly learning something useful and structuring your time can only be a good thing when you're looking for work. Receiving financial assistance from your fellow citizens when you're down on your luck should be one of the privileges that comes from living in a civilised society, it shouldn't be a right. Isn't this already happening with "working tax credits" and various low income subsidies ? Effectively people are working for less money than they can live on, because the subsidies make up the difference. Whether the employers would not employ them at a higher rate or whether they are simply keeping the surplus money is another matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 People on benefits to take drugs tests before receiving them each week. Millions of working people wouldn't get paid (and likely sacked) if they fail a drugs test so why should benefit payments be any different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Furthermore, if you can afford drugs you don't need benefits. Edited March 25, 2014 by LondonLuke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruity Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 People on benefits to take drugs tests before receiving them each week. Millions of working people wouldn't get paid (and likely sacked) if they fail a drugs test so why should benefit payments be any different? Spooky you mention that Luke a company I am just about to carry out some sub contract work for have asked that we all do weekly urine test First time I've ever been asked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Spooky you mention that Luke a company I am just about to carry out some sub contract work for have asked that we all do weekly urine test First time I've ever been asked It's becoming more and more common. A client of mine is an employment agency and they are being asked to pay for the full gamut of alcohol and drugs tests for each temp they supply. Makes it hardly viable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruity Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 It's becoming more and more common. A client of mine is an employment agency and they are being asked to pay for the full gamut of alcohol and drugs tests for each temp they supply. Makes it hardly viable. A new policy apparently which I read through and I said something like , to ensure health and safety is satisfied and sensitive information is protected ha ha what a load a carp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 It's pretty pointless in most places to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry flashman Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 tax excessive use of punctution, especially '!' unless you are actually surprised or angry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruity Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 It's pretty pointless in most places to be honest. Yes but if it has to he done, so be it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Isn't this already happening with "working tax credits" and various low income subsidies ? Effectively people are working for less money than they can live on, because the subsidies make up the difference. Whether the employers would not employ them at a higher rate or whether they are simply keeping the surplus money is another matter. No. I'm referring to those who purely through unemployment are reliant solely on the welfare state for their income. There is no reason at all why the cost of such payments could not be off-set by the recipients working for them in some public capacity. That was never what working tax credits were for. They, like most of Gordon Brown's complex and wasteful system of tax and welfare bribery were intended to draw as much of the population as possible into some degree of state dependency. There are plenty of people who are in work and paying tax and far from impoverished who receive "benefit" payments to top up their income which could easily accommodated by reducing their tax burden in the first place. Taking with one hand and giving back with the other minus the cost of the bureaucracy might be text book socialism but its an idiotic way to manage fiscal policy. Edited March 25, 2014 by Gimlet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Taking with one hand and giving back with the other minus the cost of the bureaucracy might be text book socialism but its an idiotic way to manage fiscal policy. This "text book socialism" you speak of is actually subsidising private companies by allowing them to employ people for less than a "living wage". In effect, it's giving tax payers money to private employers, hardly a socialist policy, but idiotic none the less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ack-ack Posted March 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 I love it when serious threads get silly and silly threads get serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 Spooky you mention that Luke a company I am just about to carry out some sub contract work for have asked that we all do weekly urine test First time I've ever been asked you need the whizzinator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted March 25, 2014 Report Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) This "text book socialism" you speak of is actually subsidising private companies by allowing them to employ people for less than a "living wage". In effect, it's giving tax payers money to private employers, hardly a socialist policy, but idiotic none the less. text book toryism Edited March 25, 2014 by overandunder2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.