Families need £36,800 to live acceptably.....

paradisiac said:
I have sort of been keeping an eye on this thread. but one thing I don't fully understand if, if this is what is deemed reasonable to live on, are they going to make sure that everyone gets to near that standard of earnings, or are these just figures to make those of use that earn significantly less than those figures to feel worse than we do already?
Click to expand...

I'm sure reasonable really means several TV's smart phone, broadband, sky 2 cars and a foreign holiday a year... and spare money for eating out, cinema etc etc... Basically luxery 85% of the worlds population can only dream of is what we expect as a minimum...
 
edscdk said:
I'm sure reasonable really means several TV's smart phone, broadband, sky 2 cars and a foreign holiday a year... and spare money for eating out, cinema etc etc... Basically luxery 85% of the worlds population can only dream of is what we expect as a minimum...
Click to expand...
Yes, because due to the fact absolute poverty exists in the rest of the world, we should ignore relative poverty in the UK.

Let's ignore the myriad of negative social consequences attributed to income inequality because it's worse elsewhere in the world.

In-fact, let's just stop all attempts to improve our society because somewhere else in the world, they are having a hard time. :rolleyes:

I think you will also find, the people who want to improve the working conditions of the UK poor, also want to improve the conditions for those living in abject poverty.

I've got a feeling those who don't give a toss about the UK poor, don't give a toss about those living in absolute poverty either.
 
Last edited:
willhub said:
How do people struggle on 30k?

I've worked out if I was earning £283 a week, I could live off 200 quid a week including rent and bills on top quite comfortably, quite if I would loose 83 quid a week to tax/ni I don't know.
Click to expand...

rent/mortgage, food, bills, car (some of us need them, no public transport can get me to work), baby costs.

i guess you are under 20?
 
Castiel said:
Because a viable, successful and fair society is not all about taking from that society, the argument that you put forward is flawed because because unless people pay proportionately their fair share (based on their relative income) then society cannot effectively support itself and we fall into a Dickensian dystopia of haves and have nots.

Children are the bedrock of a continued stable society, without them your publicly funded services will be unable to support societies needs as the costs outstrip the available taxpayers....you will be forced to work regardless of your age and only the very top earners in society will benefit from society.

No one is forcing you to have children, and parents pay taxes also, in many cases more than you do....those children also grow into taxpayers, again contributing to their services past and present and your future services. You are not funding anyone, you are funding yourself and the services you use and have used and will use in the future, just like the Parents and the Children when they become Adults.....
Click to expand...

this is the eloquent version of what i was saying ;)
 
Richdog said:
He is only claiming exactly what he is entitled to as a tax-paying citizen, there is nothing morally wrong about what gadgets he owns if he is careful with his money. There is no guideline saying someone who collects legitimate benefits while working full-time has to live according to anyone elses guidelines.

Reserve your scorn for non-working, jobless benefit scroungers who own a HDTV and multiple computers, because they are the ones who surely deserve it.
Click to expand...

anyone else find it amusing that many people said it was ok for jimmy carr to avoid tax and pay 1% yet someone claiming back working tax credits for a few years is a bad person? maybe if those at the top paid their fare share the ones at the bottom might not need tax breaks and we would all be better off
 
realBabelfish said:
because that child will most likely be paying your pension.

you dont earn much anyway, so its not like you are paying loads of tax as it is.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that tbh, I'll be amazed if we have a state pension left by the time I retire. Assuming the retirement age is still below life expectancy at that time.
 
shoes said:
I highly doubt that tbh, I'll be amazed if we have a state pension left by the time I retire. Assuming the retirement age is still below life expectancy at that time.
Click to expand...
I doubt either of us will have a state pension or a retirement age soon enough for us to enjoy.

Perhaps you should focus that anger at those actually responsible, look at what's happened share of wages/wealth in the top 20 economies in the world & it's pretty clear what's going on.

The media brainwashes the middle class into hating the poor while the rich laugh at both groups & run off with all money - it happens to work & has been going on for some time.
 
realBabelfish said:
anyone else find it amusing that many people said it was ok for jimmy carr to avoid tax and pay 1% yet someone claiming back working tax credits for a few years is a bad person? maybe if those at the top paid their fare share the ones at the bottom might not need tax breaks and we would all be better off
Click to expand...

I bet his 1% is worth more than any of our 20%/40% contributions. I bet he also has private health care, sends his kids to private schools etc.

In fact I bet in terms of net contribution he beats any one of us in here.

But hey ho, we should strip him of his wealth so the irresponsible poor can have a family.

What utter cod****.
 
shoes said:
I bet his 1% is worth more than any of our 20%/40% contributions. I bet he also has private health care, sends his kids to private schools etc.

In fact I bet in terms of net contribution he beats any one of us in here.

But hey ho, we should strip him of his wealth so the irresponsible poor can have a family.

What utter cod****.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree with you here. personally, I would prefer rather than working tax credits, just no tax paid for under £x (if this is the case, then up the £x so the take home wage is what the WT would top it up to). this would encourage people to work more, as instead of doing less hours but getting topped up to the same as someone on more hours, you would just not pay tax on the hours you worked. if that makes sense at all.
 
shoes said:
I bet his 1% is worth more than any of our 20%/40% contributions. I bet he also has private health care, sends his kids to private schools etc.

In fact I bet in terms of net contribution he beats any one of us in here.

But hey ho, we should strip him of his wealth so the irresponsible poor can have a family.

What utter cod****.
Click to expand...
No, he should pay to contribute towards the society he directly benefits from.

He is rich as a result of economic policies which have enabled the working class of the UK to have a disposable income to spend.

Without taxation the economy will no longer function, leaving him with no potential customers.

You are viewing the economy which is a macro system in isolation, ignoring the ecosystem style function of the state to ensure the population have the ability to continue cyclic consumption & economic growth.
 
I would struggle to live by myself (By myself in own flat/house, no other tenants) and i'm on 25% more than the quoted "Single person wage."

More than likely because I live down south in a relatively expensive area :(

2 people on the quoted single person wage though could live a comfortable life on the quoted wage down here :)
 
elmarko1234 said:
No, he should pay to contribute towards the society he directly benefits from.

He is rich as a result of economic policies which have enabled the working class of the UK to have a disposable income to spend.

Without taxation the economy will no longer function, leaving him with no potential customers.

You are viewing the economy which is a macro system in isolation, ignoring the ecosystem style function of the state to ensure the population have the ability to continue cyclic consumption & economic growth.
Click to expand...

but why should someone have to pay more because they have done well for themselves? Jimmy Carr and people in his kind of wage bracket contribute a lot towards tax already, they shouldn't be penalised for being successful. what we need to look as is giving people more of an incentive to work and not live on benefits. the whole system of teenage single mum gets a council house and enough benefits to have a car, keep her in booze and cigarettes, weekly weekends out clubbing etc., designer trackies, sky tv, broadband, iphones on stupidly high contracts.............needs to stop. yes they shouldn't be made homeless, but they also shouldn't get it so easy either.

Castiel said:
Elmarko banned?

Wtf!!!!!
Click to expand...

why?!?
 
paradisiac said:
I sort of agree with you here. personally, I would prefer rather than working tax credits, just no tax paid for under £x (if this is the case, then up the £x so the take home wage is what the WT would top it up to). this would encourage people to work more, as instead of doing less hours but getting topped up to the same as someone on more hours, you would just not pay tax on the hours you worked. if that makes sense at all.
Click to expand...

I totally agree (partly because an increased tax free allowance instead of tax credits seems more fair to everyone, and partly because it would benefit me :p)

It makes perfect sense to me.

We are over taxed as a country far too much IMO due to the powers that be being incredibly wasteful, but that's another discussion all together.

elmarko1234 said:
No, he should pay to contribute towards the society he directly benefits from.

He is rich as a result of economic policies which have enabled the working class of the UK to have a disposable income to spend.

Without taxation the economy will no longer function, leaving him with no potential customers.

You are viewing the economy which is a macro system in isolation, ignoring the ecosystem style function of the state to ensure the population have the ability to continue cyclic consumption & economic growth.
Click to expand...

I understand, and agree with what you are saying.

However it could reasonably be argued that everyone is in the position to earn money due as a result of economic policies. Without public spending on new buildings and renovating old ones I'd have no job, for example.

I disagree wholly with the policy that if you earn more you pay more. If we all paid 20% then that would be sweet, however if you earn over 38ish-k (not sure of the exact figure), which, lets be honest, is not a lot of money, then you lose half (including NI) of everything you earn over that figure.

Great - study hard, work hard, do better for yourself, get shafted.

If I end up earning as much as him (highly unlikely) I will do everything in my power to avoid paying any more tax than I have to. Unlike him I'm couldn't give a monkey's what the media thinks, so I'd keep at it regardless of how much of a stink they made.

The fact that the wealthy are, generally speaking, less of a burden on the state and would contribute more mathematically simply by paying the same proportion as everyone else then I can fully understand why he would want to avoid the tax.

I have no problem with him doing so either.

I do, however, have a problem with people having children they cannot afford simply because they know the state will bail the out. It's shameful, disgusting and setting a terrible example to the kids too.
 
paradisiac said:
but why should someone have to pay more because they have done well for themselves?
Click to expand...

No one was asking him to pay more, only to pay his fair proportional share.....Taxes are calculated as a proportion of income, this applies to everyone. Just because someone can afford to avoid taxes doesn't mean it is a moral thing to do....something Jimmy Carr admitted himself in his apology.

I believe there should be a single universal taxation rate that applies to everyone who earns above a predetermined liveable minimum.....whether you earn £25k or £250k or £2.5m the proportion of taxation you pay should be the same.

Whether someone abuses the benefits system or not is immaterial to Jimmy Carr's tax avoidance....just because a young mother on benefits buys a mobile phone doesn't justify tax avoidance at the higher end of earners.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom