How is putting the costs to taxpayers any less unfair than putting it on the benefit claimaints?
Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling
- Thread starter CosmicClown
- Start date
How is putting the costs to taxpayers any less unfair than putting it on the benefit claimaints?
I am all for getting the root of the problem. That being too few have too much and the benefits that are paid out go straight back into the too few with their monopoly on property and a whole load of other things. Rewarding success is desirable and intrinsic to encouraging its proliferation. Rewarding greed and continuity based upon derived opportunity over and above merit is not so good. The human race is starting to turn out like that rat community experiment.
But surely if you limit the reward that success can present, you limit how much people will strive for success? Not to mention that unless such a policy is implemented on an international scale, there is more incentive for people to just move to a place where the success isn't limited and then contribute to their economy instead.
But there is nothing fair and just about enforced wealth redistribition either. the conundrum is how to provide equality of opportunity without dragging people down through disproportionate enforced removal of property.
It isn't disproportionate, and it is fair and just, in principle at least.
Because the cost to individual taxpayers would be very small, whereas you would be punishing those in society with the least and who are in most need and who would feel the impact more fully. And if you read what I stated fully, I did say that it is unfortunate that the taxpayer will be liable, however if it can be allocated as you suggest then it should be Govt budgets that are responsible and not the incomes of those who can barely afford it.
I agree if you limit the reward that success brings by ensuring that only a lucky few make it big then it reduced the overall drive. I would feel more comfortable placing a bet on a 2/1 than risking everything on a 1000/1 and hoping I got really really lucky.
Well when contributing means companies taking more in breaks than they give back (which is the case in the US) then really do we want such parasites.
I am not against success just very against unrestrained greed. And if that means that world has to club together to ensure that we get some fundamental rules to ensure a degree of equality then so be it.
Ar the irony - there is nothing forced about denial of opportunity and intrinsic rights purely because you are in the dominant position. Which is exactly what has happened. You hate trade unions leveraging a minority position to force their will on the majority and yet you have no problem when the same tactics are used by corporate entities and wealthy individuals. Surely they are both onerous? Or they are both legitimate methods of enforcing people to your will and desire.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
So the government goes from saying "we will not pay a single penny" to “If the Department cannot make these retrospective changes, then further reductions in benefits might be required in order to find the money to repay the sanctions”
Very encouraging
Very encouraging
And not taxing corporations creates a different problem: individuals start creating bogus companies to channel their earnings into, thus avoiding paying tax on their income.
In fact that's been going on for years. It's standard practice for self-employed people, isn't it. Claim all your living costs as an expense for your company, thus ending up making no profit at all, and avoiding paying your tax...
All the self-employed people I know boast about how they avoid tax. So what good would it do to not tax corporations?
The more I think about it, the more I think we have just as much corruption in this country as in Africa, just we're more sophisticated about it.
What about the £5m pounds we spend annually subsidising tonnes of booze for the likes of the disgraceful Member for Falkirk?
Or their ridiculous expenses and wanton for vastly increased salaries?
What about the Lords? Up to £300 per person, each day each sitting?
This needs to change and change badly.
Or their ridiculous expenses and wanton for vastly increased salaries?
What about the Lords? Up to £300 per person, each day each sitting?
This needs to change and change badly.
Unfortunately it won't though. The general apathy is ensured through the drip feeding of Sky and consumer comforts and thoughts of dissent are brainwashed out of the majority by largely benign and conformist media.
Probably very soon when the likes of yourself are happy to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator to appease the powers that be.
Which powers would these be?
I'm fed up of these selfish profligate politicians - public servants - lording it up while casting as many stones as possible.
There's no point in arguing for a repeal of their actions in these areas, the political establishment is firmly seated in the same place.
It wouldn't be for a lack of want or trying, you just won't achieve it. Not with the corrupted and venal UK political system. Instead I'd rather try to pull them down, it's more likely to see some sort of success than trying to reform them.
What possible justification is there for that?
Because there are far more of us that pay tax, than those that do not, thereby reducing the personal impact. Not to mention it was the government that broke the law here, and we all, as a nation, elected them. Should we not be collectively responsible for their wrongdoings?
Not to mention that you are literlary advocating taking money from the poorest in the country to fund the mistakes of some of the richest.
+1
Also, the people who are being paid compensation are in the group Dolph wants to take the money from. There is no justice in penalising people for being compensated.
If £130m is what the Government made in profit from illegal suspensions of JSA claimants, then that's where the repayments come from. The money just didn't vanish, so if there are repayments to be made neither the Taxpayers or JSA claimants should foot the bill.
Pay the debt with the money taken, no one should be standing around scratching their head thinking where do we find this money.
Pay the debt with the money taken, no one should be standing around scratching their head thinking where do we find this money.