Poundland Girl Wins Forced Labour Ruling

[hurfdurf]

Taxing a corporation results in the money coming from either customers or staff, so the choices are not that different, you just use a less efficient and transparent collection method.

Or taking more money from the owners, who are often neither staff or customers.

 

[hurfdurf]

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.

You say there is nothing fair about wealth distribution, what exactly do you think would be fair? Dividing everything up and starting from scratch with everyone on an equal footing?

 

[Mr Jack]

But there is nothing fair and just about enforced wealth redistribition either.

There's nothing fair about massive wealth inequality either

 

[spankingtexan]

First the short sharp shock for just being unemployed,

then they want to retroactively change the law to avoid the consequences,

and now the cheeky ******** want to inflict collective punishment if they can't make these retrospective changes.

SICK, SICK and SICK.

 

[Dolph]

You say there is nothing fair about wealth distribution, what exactly do you think would be fair? Dividing everything up and starting from scratch with everyone on an equal footing?

I said enforced redistribution, not wealth distribution. there are numerous ways that a better distribution can be achieved without using force.

 

[Dolph]

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.

thats why you tax smart, unlike our current, massively flawed and fragmented system.

 

[Xordium]

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.

So you are fed up with them yet you play into their hands. You do know how retarded it is moaning about gold plated public pension when the lions share are taken out by the likes of military, police, fireman and nurses doing jobs that entail very difficult work on not the best of pay.

You don't see me castigating the bloke who owns the corner shop for the actions of the few in banks that have their snout in the trough because it is quite reasonable to see the difference between the two even though they work in the same "sector".

So how about some specificity in the condemnation and then you won't be playing right into the hands of those who you seem to so disagree with. Because they truly love everyone pushing the public sector to the lowest level all around and everyone attacking private sector greed because of the actions of a minority. Divide and conquer - they've done it for years and there are plenty of muppets in this country that will quite happily sing to their tune.

As to how it can be changed it can't - the future to me seems rather Gibsonesque in its tones of corporate power and lack of accountability along with a corrupt self-serving elite all whilst the common man is happy to gratify himself with his fix of insertwhateverentertainment here.

 

[Tefal]

There's nothing fair about massive wealth inequality either

why?


person a works ver very hard starts company earns lots of money

person b does nothing sits on jsa and is poor.

why is the disparity in their finances unfair?

 

[hurfdurf]

why?


person a works ver very hard starts company earns lots of money

person b does nothing sits on jsa and is poor.

why is the disparity in their finances unfair?

LOL if you think working hard is a major factor in how much wealth someone has these days

 

[mmj_uk]

I like how IDS and his cronies are now changing the law to try to get around paying back the money they were found to have illegally sanctioned.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

why?


person a works ver very hard starts company earns lots of money

person b does nothing sits on jsa and is poor.

why is the disparity in their finances unfair?

Did you miss an option or do you think that the only people who are poor are those that "do nothing and sit on jsa"?

 

[Tefal]

Did you miss an option or do you think that the only people who are poor are those that "do nothing and sit on jsa"?

no there's a spectrum of course but given the statement was that there was nothing fair about wealth disparity, it only makes sense that it applies to even the more extreme examples.

 

[Mr Jack]

person a works ver very hard starts company earns lots of money

person b does nothing sits on jsa and is poor.

why is the disparity in their finances unfair?

Well, firstly, from the simple fact that you dichotomy is largely nonsense. A and B are strawmen caricatures of real people. Almost no-one "sits on jsa" and the majority of the poor in society do not systematically claim benefits; most work hard for little pay.

Secondly, the idea that people get rich "by working hard" is basically bunkum. Yes, the rich work hard and working hard will generally get your more reward than not working hard but the idea that wealth distribution is explicable by how hard people work is simply wrong. The money that flows to the rich is largely generated by the work done by those lower down the ladder; the rich skim money off the top - which is fair, to a point but has become grossly out of whack in modern Britain.

Thirdly, being rich is only possible because of the support of general society. People are not islands, the rich are not unique mountains standing in a sea of mediocity, their wealth comes from the efforts of others. The teachers than taught them, the roadworkers that build our roads, the inventors, the doctors, the carers, the policemen and so and so forth. Yet the rich uniquely profit from the collective effort of others. This is unfair.

 

[Mr Jack]

no there's a spectrum of course but given the statement was that there was nothing fair about wealth disparity, it only makes sense that it applies to even the more extreme examples.

No, I said there was nothing fair about massive wealth inequality; that's not the same as your paraphrase.

 

[Mr Joshua]

Thirdly, being rich is only possible because of the support of general society. People are not islands, the rich are not unique mountains standing in a sea of mediocity, their wealth comes from the efforts of others. The teachers than taught them, the roadworkers that build our roads, the inventors, the doctors, the carers, the policemen and so and so forth. Yet the rich uniquely profit from the collective effort of others. This is unfair.

There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

 

[Angilion]

No. Try actually reading what I wrote.

You actually wrote exactly what they described - you want jsa claiments to pay back money that is repaid to them after it was illegally taken away in the first place. You're trying to conceal it with spin doctoring and you're using it as an opportunity to advocate penalising all jsa claimants for all time, but spankingtexan's statement was an accurate summary of what you have written.

Money was illegally taken from people. The government will try to retroactively change the law so they don't have to give it back, and probably succeed in doing so. You're advocating that the money that was illegally taken is given back and then taken away again, which is different only in that it is less honest.

The government already has the money. It's not about taking it from the taxpayer - it has already been taken from the taxpayer.

I'm a taxpayer. I'd rather pay taxes for bread and circuses for the unemployed than pay for mass murder or the collapse of society, and those are the only choices. Besides, I'm one of the working poor, so it protects me too. Workfare puts people like me out of work - why would businesses hire peasants when they can get them supplied for free by the government?

 

[spankingtexan]

Please sign the petition against the DWP's proposed law change to avoid benefit repayments. Thanks.

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...gency-legislation-to-avoid-benefit-repayments

Stop the introduction of emergency legislation to avoid benefit repayments
after the Poundland ruling.

This legislation adversely affects some of the poorest members of our society, and, in being retroactive, is contrary to the principles underlying the rule of law.

 

[spankingtexan]

Are you a low paid or part time worker? You are not safe.

Not content with workfare for unemployed and disabled people, the DWP and their thinktank friends Policy Exchange are seeking ideas on how to extend workfare and conditionality to people in low-paid and part-time work as well.

According to Lord Freud, the banker-turned-welfare-minister: “The fact that those in work will come under the ambit of the JobCentre Plus for the first time as a result of universal credit gives the government radical new opportunities.”

Having learned their lessons from New Labour in the spin of framing retrogressive steps as ‘radical’, the ConDems aren’t content with their efforts to grind down unemployed and disabled people. They now want to extend workfare and ‘conditionality’ – let’s call it profiteering, time-wasting, potentially life-sapping harassment – to working claimants when Universal Credit kicks in. However, the government is well aware that the usual divisive rhetoric about benefits robbing ‘the taxpayer’ will be more difficult to direct against people who are already working and paying taxes.



Read about it in full here..

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=2237#more-2237

 

[Dolph]

Are you a low paid or part time worker? You are not safe.

Not content with workfare for unemployed and disabled people, the DWP and their thinktank friends Policy Exchange are seeking ideas on how to extend workfare and conditionality to people in low-paid and part-time work as well.

According to Lord Freud, the banker-turned-welfare-minister: “The fact that those in work will come under the ambit of the JobCentre Plus for the first time as a result of universal credit gives the government radical new opportunities.”

Having learned their lessons from New Labour in the spin of framing retrogressive steps as ‘radical’, the ConDems aren’t content with their efforts to grind down unemployed and disabled people. They now want to extend workfare and ‘conditionality’ – let’s call it profiteering, time-wasting, potentially life-sapping harassment – to working claimants when Universal Credit kicks in. However, the government is well aware that the usual divisive rhetoric about benefits robbing ‘the taxpayer’ will be more difficult to direct against people who are already working and paying taxes.



Read about it in full here..

http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=2237#more-2237

You haven't explained why we should continue to subsidise people indefinitely for the choices they make?

 

[GAC]

You haven't explained why we should continue to subsidise people indefinitely for the choices they make?

and you havent replied about people like myself who have paid in to the system. and are now being asked to accepet less than what was already arranged because of government screw up's