Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Yup.heimlaga":31cspuh7 said:
Excessive wealth and widespread poverty are both typical signs of a failed state.
hiding scrap metal
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Excessive wealth and widespread poverty are both typical signs of a failed state.
A couple of years ago, a chap with a stout house, psychopathic tendencies, pumped up with testosterone yielding all manner of offensive weapons went around stealing, raping and pilerging young damsels. The chap did well. Built a castle, created serfdom for these without his particular skills and the world looked good for him.
The world moved on, that same chap today has no longer a trade of value, the openings for his skills have dried up and he finds himself on the opposite end of the spectrum. Rejected, unemployed and beholden to those for whom the world now values their skills.
I have three sons, genuinely if I give £100 to each of them on Monday, one by Tuesday will have spent every penny, one will have not spent a penny by Sunday and the other will have spent half and have kept half. I love them all dearly but accept that the world today will favour the tendencies of perhaps two of them whist the other will probably struggle all of his life.
The world will always favour particular attributes and these change with time. We are all different and by chance of birth some will do well and others will not. I don't believe the world is fair, nor do I think it should be, Darwinism selects and benefits those with the right attributes to flourish in a particular environment. In order that humanity has the required skills to survive, we need a mix of skills, that by definition means that some will prosper whilst some will not at any given time.
Taxtion and social responsibility is more I think about keeping civilisation civilised. It's not the inequality of say the top 10% versus the bottom 10% that counts, it's the fairness that the bottom 10% feel compared to the majority of those they see around them. Should the inequality grow to large civil unrest erupts.
If we discourage those who can excel we risk the lethargic society that communism seems to foster, where advancement is stifled and in many cases famine and deprivation follows. If we tax too high, we can create a barrier to development that affects society as a whole.
The problem is where ever the balance is struck, no one feels that it's fair, those with less feel and are deserving of more, those who are successful feel that their rewards for their labour are unjustly taken away from them.
I feel we pay taxes to allow us to live a safe and productive life, but with one constant, it will never be fair.
The world moved on, that same chap today has no longer a trade of value, the openings for his skills have dried up and he finds himself on the opposite end of the spectrum. Rejected, unemployed and beholden to those for whom the world now values their skills.
I have three sons, genuinely if I give £100 to each of them on Monday, one by Tuesday will have spent every penny, one will have not spent a penny by Sunday and the other will have spent half and have kept half. I love them all dearly but accept that the world today will favour the tendencies of perhaps two of them whist the other will probably struggle all of his life.
The world will always favour particular attributes and these change with time. We are all different and by chance of birth some will do well and others will not. I don't believe the world is fair, nor do I think it should be, Darwinism selects and benefits those with the right attributes to flourish in a particular environment. In order that humanity has the required skills to survive, we need a mix of skills, that by definition means that some will prosper whilst some will not at any given time.
Taxtion and social responsibility is more I think about keeping civilisation civilised. It's not the inequality of say the top 10% versus the bottom 10% that counts, it's the fairness that the bottom 10% feel compared to the majority of those they see around them. Should the inequality grow to large civil unrest erupts.
If we discourage those who can excel we risk the lethargic society that communism seems to foster, where advancement is stifled and in many cases famine and deprivation follows. If we tax too high, we can create a barrier to development that affects society as a whole.
The problem is where ever the balance is struck, no one feels that it's fair, those with less feel and are deserving of more, those who are successful feel that their rewards for their labour are unjustly taken away from them.
I feel we pay taxes to allow us to live a safe and productive life, but with one constant, it will never be fair.
rafezetter
Troll Hunter
deema":mli3k3e9 said:
Bravo - an excellent post. =D> =D>
I have the somewhat unique perspective of currently living off benefits while being a member of a family that most would consider wealthy and has been so for the majority of my life; not just my father but a younger brother who also makes a considerable sum working in USA in finance. I currently live off benefits for reasons that I will not divulge suffice to say a large portion of my life has had a very dark undercurrent from multiple events in my childhood that forever damaged my ability to function "normally" in society, and I can say that if it were not for the help of the benefit system I would very likely have taken my own life some 20 years past, (although I have not been on benefits all that time, far from it) and although the minority nowadays, this is exactly the sort of situation the benefits system was set up to cater for.
Having said all that and having been witness to some of the events of my childhood, my father still moans to me repeatedly how "the benefits system is costing him money" even knowing it has been quite literally my lifeline. I have also many times in the past and as recently as a few weeks ago had the fact that the benefit system comes from taxes paid by others thrown in my face, by someone who has two disabled, non working parents no less; so even within those people who get or have otherwise benefitted from benefits, the whole topic is a difficult one.
I guess the whole issue of taxes and how they are (mis)spent will be bemoaned until the end of time.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
It's not about fairness it's about running society in a practical way for the benefit of all.deema":1a71wfsr said:
The world as a lifeboat; fairness isn't an issue in a lifeboat and raising issues of privilege would be utterly deprecated and you'd risk being thrown over the side!.
Is it? In principle don't think so. The details are complicated of course.
And everybody else, one way or another, at one time or another in their lives. To each according to their needs.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
"To each according to their needs"
That reminds me of the old prayer - Please God give me what I need and not what I want. When you live in an extremely poor area and see people picking up three times as much for not working as they do working, it's not surprising that you think the system stinks. As said before, there's no point in blaming the people taking advantage of it, any more that there is blaming people for taking money abroad perfectly legally.
I do find the opinion that some people seem to hold - that it's someone's moral duty to pay as much tax as possible - a bit strange though.
That reminds me of the old prayer - Please God give me what I need and not what I want. When you live in an extremely poor area and see people picking up three times as much for not working as they do working, it's not surprising that you think the system stinks. As said before, there's no point in blaming the people taking advantage of it, any more that there is blaming people for taking money abroad perfectly legally.
I do find the opinion that some people seem to hold - that it's someone's moral duty to pay as much tax as possible - a bit strange though.
heimlaga
Established Member
The most highly valued skills in modern society is wealthy parents.
I have been turned down at job interwiews many times not because I didn't have the correct qualifications for the job as construction engineer but because I wasn't financially independent of my salary and that made me unsuitable.
Being financially independent of your pay before age 35 implies rich parents. There is just not any other way of getting there.
By the way I have also been turned down because I "must understand that I am too old to employ" at age 28 or 29...... and because I came to the interwiew in an old yet well kept car that did not befit an empoyee in that office........ and because I have worked as a carpenter before and "must understand that a former worker is unsuitable as foreman"........and because I had refused to pay 950 euros in cash without any reciept to a former employer and sued him to court when he withheld 5000 euros of my pay and fired me as punishment for not paying my mandatory "fees". Bribes that is.
Many many times I have been offered jobs with wages below subsistance level. To hold up a job you must be able to afford food and clothes and somewhere to live plus all costs caused by the employment such as commuting and work clothes and tools.
Many many times I have had to turn down job offers that were paid below that minimum level. I am a batchelor and I am famous in the whole parish for my frugality and ability to make do with little money so a pay that doesn't cover my minimum living costs cannot cover the living costs for anyone else.
To take such a job you must be financially independent that is have an inherited fortune working for you in the stock exchange.
Therefore I think the upper crust people who critisise me for turning down those jobs while living on benefits should take those jobs themselves. They can apparently afford to work under those conditions. I cannot.
I have been turned down at job interwiews many times not because I didn't have the correct qualifications for the job as construction engineer but because I wasn't financially independent of my salary and that made me unsuitable.
Being financially independent of your pay before age 35 implies rich parents. There is just not any other way of getting there.
By the way I have also been turned down because I "must understand that I am too old to employ" at age 28 or 29...... and because I came to the interwiew in an old yet well kept car that did not befit an empoyee in that office........ and because I have worked as a carpenter before and "must understand that a former worker is unsuitable as foreman"........and because I had refused to pay 950 euros in cash without any reciept to a former employer and sued him to court when he withheld 5000 euros of my pay and fired me as punishment for not paying my mandatory "fees". Bribes that is.
Many many times I have been offered jobs with wages below subsistance level. To hold up a job you must be able to afford food and clothes and somewhere to live plus all costs caused by the employment such as commuting and work clothes and tools.
Many many times I have had to turn down job offers that were paid below that minimum level. I am a batchelor and I am famous in the whole parish for my frugality and ability to make do with little money so a pay that doesn't cover my minimum living costs cannot cover the living costs for anyone else.
To take such a job you must be financially independent that is have an inherited fortune working for you in the stock exchange.
Therefore I think the upper crust people who critisise me for turning down those jobs while living on benefits should take those jobs themselves. They can apparently afford to work under those conditions. I cannot.
Lons
Established Member
phil.p":261c4j1h said:
+1 =D>
There's a lot of clap trap around. We don't live in an equal or fair society and never will. The benefits system was not designed to be a lifelong way of life which many benefit claimants are now deeply entrenched in and why economic migrants are still bursting a gut to be a part of. It was formulated as a short term safety net to catch those who needed support only until they could support themselves. I have no issues with genuine claimants only the ones and there are many if my local experience is a fair representation, who additionally work in the black economy and defraud the rest of us.
Neither do I have a problem with those who use perfectly legal means of reducing their tax liability, it's their money not mine and their decision to do with it what they will just as we have the choice of buying our machinery, tools and cars, wherever in the world they're manufactured.. If it means so much to you Jacob then trade in your smart car which was made in France with profit going back to Germany and buy a Sunderland made Nissan or a Mini which at least keep British workers in employment.
I don't have enough savings to put offshore but I do use a tax avoidance scheme called ISA to maximize my hard earned cash. I guess those who've spent theirs on cigs, booze, gambling etc. might view that as immoral as well. :roll:
NickWelford
So many tools, so little to show
Why can't we have a system of graduated tax nbut absolutely no allowances or concessions? Therefore no loopholes. I'm somewhat right of centre but I still think people who can afford it should pay lot more. The super rich, earning 7 figures a year coulee easily pay a lot more and not suffer at all. I also object to bankers on huge salaries and bonuses and any government employee, local or national, on huge salaries and bonuses. In all businesses, the senior execs should get no more than say, arbitrarily, 20 times the FTE of the lowest paid in the business.
RogerS
Established Member
Jacob":19u4ez1p said:
Yup....
China
USSR (and now Russia)
and now Venezeula.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
This is the thing - people who earn more should pay more ...but they do, in a system that has a fair level of inescapable tax. If you earn £500 and you pay 20% tax you pay £100. If you earn £50,000 a week, you pay £10,000 tax - simple. The problem comes when people earning that sort of money don't pay anything, or very little. 28% of tax comes from 1% of the population, apparently - so yes actually they do pay more. It would help if people differentiated between more as a larger amount, or more as in a larger percentage. Years ago I met Swedes who had been paying more in combined taxes than they were earning so emigrated - and that made their old socialist utopia a fortune, didn't it? Reasonable taxes at least encourage people to stay and keep their money in the Country and pay them.NickWelford":3fsj49bn said:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Probably the only ones ever! By and large immigrants move FROM low tax areas TO high tax areas - not because they are keen on tax but because high tax countries are also high employment, higher wages, higher public services and generally more civilised. Sweden would be high on the list for many.phil.p":3m8od6hy said:
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Not the only ones ever. It was the main reason so many Swedes emigrated, especially to the USA (which had a low flat rate of tax). I met Swedes in NZ (which also has a low rate of tax) who had emigrated there for the same reason.
"By and large immigrants move FROM low tax areas TO high tax areas ... " Yes. Most are leaving Countries where if they know how to work the system they pay no taxes at all, or have no income anyway. I'd emigrate to a Country where the basic rate of tax was 90% - providing I was paid a million quid a year. Slightly different argument.
"By and large immigrants move FROM low tax areas TO high tax areas ... " Yes. Most are leaving Countries where if they know how to work the system they pay no taxes at all, or have no income anyway. I'd emigrate to a Country where the basic rate of tax was 90% - providing I was paid a million quid a year. Slightly different argument.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Nobody is suggesting 90% as a base rate - it'd be impossible. But 90% as a top marginal rate is quite possible and has been applied at various times - during war and the recovery thereafter, though rates on unearned incomes were high until relatively recentlyphil.p":2c1tl3kk said:
USA is a very highly taxed state overall. It'd have to be if you look at the scale of their state spending.
Alexam
Bandsaw Boxmaker
If someone with loads of assets and capital would benefit from offshore funds, then their advisers would suggest it as an option. They would be advising on tax allowances that various governments over the years have sanctioned. If the wealthy were not given all the options to select from, then any adviser would not be doing his/her job.
The fact that someone has invested offshore in the past, does not make them dishonest, but if the flavour of the month is now to avoid offshore funds, then the wealthy may look for other legal ways to save tax, even to the extent of setting up Trusts where they can borrow money from to reduce income tax and save on inheritance tax over time. Even people's Wills can be worded in such a way to save tax that woulkd otherwise be paid to the goverenment rather that the surviving families.
Unfortunetely many people never hear about these tax advantages as they are not appropriate to them, but those tax breaks will continue to be legal until such time as there is a change in the law on that particular tax saving opportunity.
Many years ago (old pounds shillings and pence), there was 'Super Tax' and in old money, that was 19/6 in every 20s ( £1 ) over and above other taxed levels. Not much left from the final level, but it was still a challenge and a target to aim for, but I don't know when that tax was removed. The harder you worked the more tax you paid.
Malcolm
The fact that someone has invested offshore in the past, does not make them dishonest, but if the flavour of the month is now to avoid offshore funds, then the wealthy may look for other legal ways to save tax, even to the extent of setting up Trusts where they can borrow money from to reduce income tax and save on inheritance tax over time. Even people's Wills can be worded in such a way to save tax that woulkd otherwise be paid to the goverenment rather that the surviving families.
Unfortunetely many people never hear about these tax advantages as they are not appropriate to them, but those tax breaks will continue to be legal until such time as there is a change in the law on that particular tax saving opportunity.
Many years ago (old pounds shillings and pence), there was 'Super Tax' and in old money, that was 19/6 in every 20s ( £1 ) over and above other taxed levels. Not much left from the final level, but it was still a challenge and a target to aim for, but I don't know when that tax was removed. The harder you worked the more tax you paid.
Malcolm
Lons
Established Member
What is perhaps missed here as well is that whilst those with wealth use all legal methods to reduce their tax liability it's pretty difficult to avoid the other taxes we all pay on a day to day basis and those people spend a lot more on consumables than the rest of us when compared as individuals.
I know a local footballer (their earnings are another argument), who's paid more in just a few years in VAT on his cars and household goods than I have in everything over a lifetime and I've bought a lot of stuff in my time.
It keeps people in work though.
I know a local footballer (their earnings are another argument), who's paid more in just a few years in VAT on his cars and household goods than I have in everything over a lifetime and I've bought a lot of stuff in my time.
It keeps people in work though.
heimlaga
Established Member
We poor cannot use legal means to reduce our taxes and tax like fees of various kinds. We are forced to go either illegal or bankrupt.
They say it is fair........ I don't think so. If it is punishable for me to drive my 45 years old farm tractor at work without all those new additional licenses which I cannot afford and punishable for me to weld at work without all those new unaffordable licenses......... then the rich should face exactly the same dilemma. Either pay a tax they "cannot" afford or be punished for avoinding it.
That would be fair.
They say it is fair........ I don't think so. If it is punishable for me to drive my 45 years old farm tractor at work without all those new additional licenses which I cannot afford and punishable for me to weld at work without all those new unaffordable licenses......... then the rich should face exactly the same dilemma. Either pay a tax they "cannot" afford or be punished for avoinding it.
That would be fair.
Lons
Established Member
heimlaga":2f6dc07b said:
Clearly you're in a different country with different laws and cultures so difficult to compare directly with the UK, however in your case it seems that your problems are with the regulations and cost of meeting them that is the issue. The officials making those laws are elected and your power to change is I assume through the ballot box.
If someone is acting within the law and therefore completely legal then it is unjust to punish that person as they have done nothing wrong. The unjust thing is the law that allows those actions to take place and therefore should be changed.
It's a fact of life that there will always be people that "have" and those that don't and just because people have more money than you ( and I for that matter ) doesn't mean that they should be vilified for that unless of course their wealth has been obtained via criminal activities.
Unfortunately the green eyed monster will always rear its' head whatever the circumstances.
cheers
Bob
Alexam
Bandsaw Boxmaker
heimlaga":1m1ie9ry said:
Lons makes very good points, but all farmers all get a rotten deal, more so than most.
However, all these additional rules and regulations that have been forced upon us by the EU since it's formation, have not helped. If the UK exits the EU, I believes we will see many changes for the better.
This does not change the taxation laws in different countries, which have been set up over the years offering tax breaks that are only beneficial for those who are already wealthy enough to take advantage, but is not suitable to those who do not.
The recent press articles about certain people screwing the country by not paying so much of the higher taxation to the UK is not illegal, as has already been said, but unless the 'rules' are changed, they will always have that advantage.
Many of the wealthiest families in this country have most of their money in Trusts, set up years ago to avoid some taxation, but only governments can change laws. If the benefits are available by simply filling in a few forms, then most of the people with enough money will fill them in and that will never change unless the laws change. Even if you won the Lottery next week, you would be looking at ways to protect that money as best you can and financial advisers would be suggesting tax advantages that you could take.
The worst tax avoidance is the large companies who operate over here but set up taxation in another country. That has lost the UK Billions and will continue to do so unless the rules change, which they should if they benefit from being in the UK. I believe that some changes will be taking place soon, but we still have our hands tied tightly by the rules that the EU lay down. WE cannot do anything without their approval on anything. If we are out of the EU, then more changes can be made as we will be talking for ourselves and not gagged by those elsewhere.
Malcolm
DiscoStu
Established Member
There does seem to have been an under current on this thread with regards to benefits. I'll be open, I'm a higher rate tax payer and earn more than average, I have a nice house and do ok. Well I consider it ok others would say I do very well, some others would say not so well. It's all about perspective. Anyway I don't claim any benefits, however I have no issue with benefits, in fact I'm very pro benefits.
The trouble is that (and it's probably a media thing) people hear the word benefit and they visualise a 20 something bloke, drinking cans of larger, smoking a *** and watching Jeremy Kyle on his 50" LED TV that we are paying for. He could work but he can't be bothered because he's happy for the system to pay for him.
Now I'm sure that some of that is reality but it's a tiny tiny percentage of the population and when we talk about benefits we also need to visualise those who are physically and mentally disabled, those people who have worked for a large portion of their life paying into the system but now have some illness etc and need to benefit from the system.
I know two people of the same age who both became single mothers around the same time. One continued to work and did all she could to support herself and her daughter the other claimed every benefit under the sun. The one who claimed benefit then started to work (cash in hand type stuff) and continued to claim benefits etc. I told her that I would report her and she ignored me (called me a few names). I did report her and her benefits stopped, guess what happened then? She miraculously became well enough to work and got a job. She still hates me but I can't stand people who scam the system I always see it as them taking from those who do need it.
The other thing that annoys me is that someone's "wealth" is taken into account when working out what they can obtain, on the face of it the principal is fine, you don't want to be giving housing benefit to a retired millionaire just because he has no job (extreme and flawed example) however I do remember that my Grandmother couldn't get some payments that most pensioners were getting because she had savings. She had £10k in the bank and that had been saved throughout her entire life. She didn't drink, smoke or gamble, she went on coach holidays in the uk and she lived in a mobile home, yet she'd been careful and saved and was then penalised.
I've got a mate who earns good money but spends it all, his view is that he doesn't want to die with any money in the bank so might as well spend it!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The trouble is that (and it's probably a media thing) people hear the word benefit and they visualise a 20 something bloke, drinking cans of larger, smoking a *** and watching Jeremy Kyle on his 50" LED TV that we are paying for. He could work but he can't be bothered because he's happy for the system to pay for him.
Now I'm sure that some of that is reality but it's a tiny tiny percentage of the population and when we talk about benefits we also need to visualise those who are physically and mentally disabled, those people who have worked for a large portion of their life paying into the system but now have some illness etc and need to benefit from the system.
I know two people of the same age who both became single mothers around the same time. One continued to work and did all she could to support herself and her daughter the other claimed every benefit under the sun. The one who claimed benefit then started to work (cash in hand type stuff) and continued to claim benefits etc. I told her that I would report her and she ignored me (called me a few names). I did report her and her benefits stopped, guess what happened then? She miraculously became well enough to work and got a job. She still hates me but I can't stand people who scam the system I always see it as them taking from those who do need it.
The other thing that annoys me is that someone's "wealth" is taken into account when working out what they can obtain, on the face of it the principal is fine, you don't want to be giving housing benefit to a retired millionaire just because he has no job (extreme and flawed example) however I do remember that my Grandmother couldn't get some payments that most pensioners were getting because she had savings. She had £10k in the bank and that had been saved throughout her entire life. She didn't drink, smoke or gamble, she went on coach holidays in the uk and she lived in a mobile home, yet she'd been careful and saved and was then penalised.
I've got a mate who earns good money but spends it all, his view is that he doesn't want to die with any money in the bank so might as well spend it!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lons
Established Member
Hi Stu
I agree with all that you said and I'm in a similar situation though now finally retired I worked 7 days a week and often well into the night to get what I have. We didn't drink or smoke and rarely ate out, didn't have a holiday, not even a weekend for 10 years and my wife held down a responsible full time job so every penny was hard earned.
We saved and put money into pensions which of course now means we couldn't claim benefits even if we wanted to.
I have family and friends who enviously look at us as well off and pass sarcastic remarks but those same relatives have earned a lot of money during their lives and just pi**ed it away which is very often the case. We make choices and succeed or fail, whether we get up and try again is down to character and determination and it's often the ones who can't be bothered who do all the whinging.
I'd add that we grew up in a council house, I'm one of 9 kids and my father was a miner who had a second job as well, he needed that to put food on the table.
I'm a firm supporter of the benefits system but there are areas here as all over the country where generations have never worked and don't see the need to, I know some of these people very well and they're perfectly open about that and milk the system for all it's worth. The areas are rife with dodgy cash in hand work, drugs and crime. They defraud the benefits system and deprive the country of tax and national insurance revenue. These people should definitely not be in receipt of the benefits they claim and are reducing the amount available for genuine claimants who really need help. As I've said before, the benefits system was always intended as short term help for those who need it, not a lifetime "salary" and way of life!
As an aside, my daughter lives in an area where there is an ex miner MP who's been there forever 'cos "labour is for the people" and if they put a monkey up for election it would win. :roll: He's just written an article in her local rag condemning in very strong language "this government" and Camerons investment issue. Strange that this is the same MP who pays his family at our expense for doing nothing, until recently had a council house whilst owning others and in the MP expenses scandal not so long ago had to scramble and pay back thousands £s to avoid action being taken against him. Makes you think doesn't it? (hammer)
Bob
I agree with all that you said and I'm in a similar situation though now finally retired I worked 7 days a week and often well into the night to get what I have. We didn't drink or smoke and rarely ate out, didn't have a holiday, not even a weekend for 10 years and my wife held down a responsible full time job so every penny was hard earned.
We saved and put money into pensions which of course now means we couldn't claim benefits even if we wanted to.
I have family and friends who enviously look at us as well off and pass sarcastic remarks but those same relatives have earned a lot of money during their lives and just pi**ed it away which is very often the case. We make choices and succeed or fail, whether we get up and try again is down to character and determination and it's often the ones who can't be bothered who do all the whinging.
I'd add that we grew up in a council house, I'm one of 9 kids and my father was a miner who had a second job as well, he needed that to put food on the table.
I'm a firm supporter of the benefits system but there are areas here as all over the country where generations have never worked and don't see the need to, I know some of these people very well and they're perfectly open about that and milk the system for all it's worth. The areas are rife with dodgy cash in hand work, drugs and crime. They defraud the benefits system and deprive the country of tax and national insurance revenue. These people should definitely not be in receipt of the benefits they claim and are reducing the amount available for genuine claimants who really need help. As I've said before, the benefits system was always intended as short term help for those who need it, not a lifetime "salary" and way of life!
As an aside, my daughter lives in an area where there is an ex miner MP who's been there forever 'cos "labour is for the people" and if they put a monkey up for election it would win. :roll: He's just written an article in her local rag condemning in very strong language "this government" and Camerons investment issue. Strange that this is the same MP who pays his family at our expense for doing nothing, until recently had a council house whilst owning others and in the MP expenses scandal not so long ago had to scramble and pay back thousands £s to avoid action being taken against him. Makes you think doesn't it? (hammer)
Bob
- Status
