£30,000 per annum income.

[maxi]

yeah. didnt some people refer to it as 'late-capitalism' or something?

Just to add, it aint about feeling sorry for anyone, just as much as it shouldn;'t be about hating someone because of our lazy, ignorant 'understanding' (that can't possibly take into account all the factors) then running with it and applying it to every one who isn't them. yo.

 

[`mongoose]

I personally agree with yaruar's first point.

Underage sex is statutory rape and those gentlemen who committed the act should be charged. Is it ethically fair? No, but it is the law and there are lots of unfair things in the law. The fact that the girls haven't been forced by their mother or someone else in the community hasn't stepped forwards to shop the fathers is pretty disgraceful.

The problem here is that people read this story and think 'single mothers' sponging fuckers, because of once case which is a pretty disgraceful abuse of the system. To stop this system being abused due to terrible parenting would also stop the safety net which stops 1000s of vulnerable, disaffected, young adults falling into the mire of homelessness. In my opinion if I have to pay for some spongers to protect those who need protecting, fair dues.

My final point on the education system is as follows. Teachers at the moment bear the cross of every bad teacher that was in the system over the last 50 years and for every bad one that hasn't been shipped out yet. The pendulum has swung too far. From having too much power, teachers now have too little power. I read someone commenting on a teacher not being able to hit his child. Fair comment, what about the child hitting the teacher?

I have friends who are teachers and my wife is a teacher. The abuse and everyday assaults that they suffer from kids that they to try and educate is pretty shocking. The sad thing is she loves her job, she loves teaching and she loves kids. Every night I come home and watch her slowly falling out of love with the proffession, schools have so little power to remove or control kids who are a problem, and she's only teaching primary. She's been threatened with knives, kicked, headbutted, bitten, elbowed, sworn at, all by primary school kids.

Then you see someone blaming the education system. Some kids simply disrupt any attempt at teaching, one child can stop a whole lesson.

M

 

[Tom]

I personally agree with yaruar's first point.

Underage sex is statutory rape M

Only under 12 AFAIK.

 

[yaruar]

Only under 12 AFAIK.

i'm not sure of the definitions in law, but being under the age of consent literally means what it says that anyone under the age of 16 can not knowingly consent to sexual activity. I think judges and the CPS are given a bit of leeway based around common sense, but the low is pretty straightforward on these matters.

Of course if they had been 12 year old boys instead of girls the men in question would have been thrown in jail for life and their families' houses firebombed, but that's a whole other issue.

 

[Scouse]

Jealousy?

No. Bitterness.

 

[Scouse]

Bingo! We just hit upon why there isn't a thread berating those who earn millions and pay fuck all tax! Because, and I'm sure Scouse isn't alone, we'd all like to think we'll be that rich one day maybe perhaps and wouldn't like it if it happens to us.

I never said that - but nice twist. Tax the rich - at the same percentage as everyone else. It's only fair.

Hey me too! and guess what! I'm all for taxing higher earners! so that blows that idea dunnit!

What? Because you disagree with me that means my idea's blown out of the water?

What a gyp.

Nice argument. I'll take that one as a win for me then eh?

Again applying your life model to others. I kind of agree i with the 'tough shit' bit, but again point to someone elses, and my posts on deep rooted problems in society etc. Secondly I think you're wrong about making something of your life. You've just said not everyone CAN, but you still expect people who know(for whatever reason) they won't 'make' it to try! what the FUCK is the point in that? People generally do NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO CRITICALLY OBSERVE their own state of life, let alone consider the burden of themselves on the rest of society and even if they do the conclusion they have to come to is a grim one. 'ah well, I'll never live comfortably(unless i win the lottery with this 15 tickets!) it but at least through my hard work and graft Wayne Rooney will be able to drive to work in his 100k car on nice, clean new roads, I'm a Good human being' Man what shit!

I'm not quite sure what you're saying - are you condoning the slacking off that loads of people do? Don't you think there's a moral imperative for everyone to at least make an effort?

I'm sorry, It isn't Jealousy or spite, Working Harder does not equal Earning More. It's just fucking Capitalism man! Someone Stays rich at the expense of others, and then there's those in the middle, who aspire to be rich and don'y want the dirty skanks making it harder than they already see it as being. Though in truth it's nigh on impossible.

Never said hard work will make you rich (hasn't done for me, unfortunately) - I said that working for your living rather than sponging off the state is morally right.

 

[Danya]

Only under 12 AFAIK.

Fairly sure it's the age of consent (which is 16) that applies.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

It IS the age of consent.

Unless of course the men met the girls in a club (Standard pover 18s only type) and it was a one off thing. Then it is still rape but they have a defence.

 

[Ormorof]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying - are you condoning the slacking off that loads of people do? Don't you think there's a moral imperative for everyone to at least make an effort?

you know its less than 1% of those claiming benefits that are just "sponging off the state"

kinda hard for anyone to work if they have kids, yes they are stupid, yes its their fault but should you let the kids starve just because what they did was stupid?

and 30k a year between 6 people isnt exactly a huge amount per person (consider it 5k per annum per person in that household )

 

[Tom]

I think the police are obliged to charge statutory rape for sex under 12, no matter what the circumstances. Above that age they don't bother.

 

[nath]

Regarding the apples thing - you lot seem to be missing something out. On the current tax system if someone earns 10 apples gets taxed 2, someone earning 100 doesn't get taxed 40. Remember, the 40% is taxed on the salary you earn ABOVE the bracket. I can't remember exactly where the brackets are but if it was 40% on the entire salary then it'd be possible to be on a lower tax bracket earning more than someone on a higher - which'd be just silly tbh.

Scouse - it's not jealousy, it's not bitterness. Without wanting to sound like a cock, I've been brought up in a fairly well to do middle class family. I'm intending on working my way up to the highest tax bracket (whether I do is another point entirely) but when I do I will expect to pay lots of tax. I will also not moan about scroungers and skivs etc. We live in a civilised society (supposedly), it's a luxury, we should pay for it. If you're earning shedloads of cash, you can afford to pay more and should. If you don't like it - either fuckoff to another country or hey, why not take a job as a street sweeper, you'll pay less tax. No one is forcing you to earn a lot of money. This is a welfare state, we look after each other - people who can afford to have to put more in to that. That's not to say that we shouldn't keep an eye on the system and make sure people aren't exploiting it. Despite being a bit of a liberal hippy, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't implement that plan someone suggested earlier - 15-20 hours a week of general community work after 6 months on the dole. Why not make long term claimers work a bit.

</unintelligible rant>

 

[Krazeh]

Can anyone give a reason as to why people earning lots of money should pay a higher percentage of tax other than because they can afford it better? At the end of the day if they want to earn more money and can manage it then fair play to them, I don't see why they should have to contribute any more (obviously taking into account that at a flat rate they'd pay more anyway) to society than someone who's decided that they're happy to work in Maccy D's.

 

[Damini]

If you're earning shedloads of cash, you can afford to pay more and should. If you don't like it - either fuckoff to another country...

Which is precisely what rich people would do if taxation increases, therefore taking money and industry out of the country, and not being a good thing at all. You should have tax incentives to keep high earners in the country, as high earners generate revenue, and employment. An exodus of high earners into other countries because of taxation = a very bad thing indeed.

 

[nath]

Hmm - valid point. I don't claim to know the answer but I do still think that people who can afford to pay more, should. If suddenly everyone has to pay the same percentage - surely that means either well off people will end up paying less or struggling people will pay more. If it's the former, surely there simply won't be enough money in the system. If the latter, people will find it even harder to survive.

 

[DaGaffer]

Personally, I don't really have a problem with paying higher-rate tax (despite my previous posts ), I just think the definition of 'rich' is completely out to lunch in this country. Anything you earn above 30K (ish) is taxed at 40% - does anyone really think 30K is a high wage? (I'm recruiting new graduates on 20K+ these days).

Fact is, when lefties start banging on about 'taxing the rich' it's not 'the rich' that get it in the neck; its the middle classes every time. The really rich have the resources to minimise their tax exposure, and so, obviously, they do (and you'll never change that). They also don't care about 12 year old chav mothers or whatever because it has no bearing on their lives; for the middle classes, who are closer to the problem both physically and economically its far more annoying to see their hard-earned being wasted.

I reckon there are lots of people posting here whose 'tax the rich' ideals will change as soon as they're the ones paying - and believe me, as most of you are intelligent and articulate (not all obviously ) you'll cross that threshold soon enough and suddenly you'll be the so-called 'rich'.

 

[snake75]

Can anyone give a reason as to why people earning lots of money should pay a higher percentage of tax other than because they can afford it better? At the end of the day if they want to earn more money and can manage it then fair play to them, I don't see why they should have to contribute any more (obviously taking into account that at a flat rate they'd pay more anyway) to society than someone who's decided that they're happy to work in Maccy D's.

and you only say that cos ur parents are loaded and u vote conservative...

 

[Tom]

I prefer to think of the higher tax rate as being the standard rate, and people who earn below that threshold get a discount on their tax rate.

Look at it that way, and it seems a bit fairer.

As for Scouse's point, I concur on many things he says, but you have to consider that while the amount of tax you pay varies with your profits, the cost of basic essentials remains the same for all. If the cost of food and heating were scaled according to one's salary, then you wouldn't need tax bands - but thats impractical.

Income tax aside, think about it - you get taxed on your:

Earnings
Spending (including essentials)
Insurance
Motoring
Vehicle ownership
Road use
House ownership
Pension
Inheritance
Savings

We're all being taxed on money that we have already paid tax on. The government should not be using tax revenue to massage the unemployment figures. Its like paying one man to dig a hole, and another man to fill it back in.

 

[Danya]

Higher tax is around 36K gross p.a. However at 31k you kick into the upper band of NI whereby it drops from 11% to 1% so the overall effect isn't too harsh.

Effectively between ~6k (or wherever the 10% band stops for you) you're paying 33% tax (22% tax and 11% NI) up to 31K then you're on 23% up to 36K then 41% above that.

NI is the biggest scam going anyway - it's income tax 2 dressed up as something else. :/

 

[Deadmanwalking]

As for Scouse's point, I concur on many things he says, but you have to consider that while the amount of tax you pay varies with your profits, the cost of basic essentials remains the same for all. If the cost of food and heating were scaled according to one's salary, then you wouldn't need tax bands - but thats impractical.

I hate to say this but i agree with him. It's what i was originally saying.

 

[CurryKnight]

Why should they get benefits? What have they paid into the system?

Personally I hope a future government forces such people to pay it all back.

i think the liberalists might have something to say about that

 

[maxi]

Personally, I don't really have a problem with paying higher-rate tax (despite my previous posts ), I just think the definition of 'rich' is completely out to lunch in this country. Anything you earn above 30K (ish) is taxed at 40% - does anyone really think 30K is a high wage? (I'm recruiting new graduates on 20K+ these days).

Fact is, when lefties start banging on about 'taxing the rich' it's not 'the rich' that get it in the neck; its the middle classes every time. The really rich have the resources to minimise their tax exposure, and so, obviously, they do (and you'll never change that). They also don't care about 12 year old chav mothers or whatever because it has no bearing on their lives; for the middle classes, who are closer to the problem both physically and economically its far more annoying to see their hard-earned being wasted.

I reckon there are lots of people posting here whose 'tax the rich' ideals will change as soon as they're the ones paying - and believe me, as most of you are intelligent and articulate (not all obviously ) you'll cross that threshold soon enough and suddenly you'll be the so-called 'rich'.

30k is pittance in London, and not much more outside. I'm talking(as are most people) 90-100k+ a year.

As for this argument about the 'rich' taking industry and themselves elsewhere, has anyone got any links arguing this point? On the face of it, there's lots of flaws in it, but I'm not sure. Especially as it's one of those off the cuff one liners to repell a certain argument, it contains very little fact or imformation. So if anyone has a link, ot a book reference or anything. ta.


Scouse: I never said you said what you never said. etc. be constructive!

 

[Will]

Surely if the rich leave the country, and take their businesses with them...there will be a gap in the market which someone else can fill? Supply and demand, and all that.

 

[~Yuckfou~]

Surely if the rich leave the country, and take their businesses with them...there will be a gap in the market which someone else can fill? Supply and demand, and all that.

Poorer people are not poor because there are already well off people. Poorer people are poorer because they don't have the skills to not be. Removing well off people won't give them those skills. It will however reduce the number of lower paid jobs available to them.

 

[maxi]

eh, poorer people are poor because it suits richer people for it to be that way damnit. If there were no poor people, who'd keep the rich rich? What 'skills' do you mean? Where does anyone get these 'skills'?

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Don't you know anything Maxi. Being born into a stinking rich family takes real skill.

Winning the lottery, all skill.

Wake up man. Poor people are scummy, lazy, thick twats. GOD!!!

 

[Will]

Poorer people are not poor because there are already well off people. Poorer people are poorer because they don't have the skills to not be. Removing well off people won't give them those skills. It will however reduce the number of lower paid jobs available to them.

Errr...so removing the stupidly rich removes demand for services and products? And here was me thinking that the stupidly rich got that way cashing in on business opportunities.

Oh noes, I have failed to understand economics again.

 

[Tom]

Poorer people are not poor because there are already well off people. Poorer people are poorer because they don't have the skills to not be. Removing well off people won't give them those skills. It will however reduce the number of lower paid jobs available to them.

Well said that man.

 

[yaruar]

Personally, I don't really have a problem with paying higher-rate tax (despite my previous posts ), I just think the definition of 'rich' is completely out to lunch in this country. Anything you earn above 30K (ish) is taxed at 40% - does anyone really think 30K is a high wage? (I'm recruiting new graduates on 20K+ these days).

Fact is, when lefties start banging on about 'taxing the rich' it's not 'the rich' that get it in the neck; its the middle classes every time. The really rich have the resources to minimise their tax exposure, and so, obviously, they do (and you'll never change that). They also don't care about 12 year old chav mothers or whatever because it has no bearing on their lives; for the middle classes, who are closer to the problem both physically and economically its far more annoying to see their hard-earned being wasted.

I reckon there are lots of people posting here whose 'tax the rich' ideals will change as soon as they're the ones paying - and believe me, as most of you are intelligent and articulate (not all obviously ) you'll cross that threshold soon enough and suddenly you'll be the so-called 'rich'.

I personally think the higher tax bracket needs to change as salaries do increase quite a lot over time. 30k 10 years ago was a lot of money. Personally i'd chuck the higher tax bracket up to 50k, keep it at 40 percent, then add a second high tax bracket over 100k at 60 percent and lower the basic rate of tax down by about 5 percent.

 

[yaruar]

30k is pittance in London, and not much more outside.QUOTE]

It took me 6 years of hard work to get to the point where i earn 30k and it's not a pittance. 1850 a month in take home pay is actually a lot of money. Most people in the country survive on a hell of a lot less than that.

 

[DaGaffer]

30k is pittance in London, and not much more outside.QUOTE]

It took me 6 years of hard work to get to the point where i earn 30k and it's not a pittance. 1850 a month in take home pay is actually a lot of money. Most people in the country survive on a hell of a lot less than that.

Six years over a working life of 40-odd years is hardly a long time. Relative to real wealth, 30K is a pittance. Sorry, but it is. Ironically, Labour regard a 'typical' family as having an income of £41,000 ,(although I've read elsewhere its closer to £28K). Sure, there are lots of people surviving on less, but its certainly not 'most' people.