UKIP

[Gwadien]

That's a completely different issue though. It has absolutely nothing to do with the workshy not wanting to do work that is readily available because their GSCE in PE means they should be on 50k and drive a golden rocket car.

The thing is - they're not complaining, the dole scroungers, we complain about them, but the richer people dodging taxes seems to be ignored a great deal more than the lazy people that if you got all of them working, they'd probably contribute less than 1 super-rich tax dodger.

 

[soze]

I think the point Scouse is making is that there's people out there sitting on billions, doing fuck all and trying to avoid as much tax as possible, whilst you complain about people that take £60 every two weeks from the state.

Isn't the difference that you can do something about one but not the other? If you go after the big guys they take their toys and leave. Unless you think it is OK to just steal there money taking these guys does no good.

I don't just hate the dole scroungers because they are dole scroungers it just makes me worry about what is coming when a massive part of a generation believe it is fine to live with their hands out. What happens when we can no longer afford the nanny state? It already looks like I will work my whole life for no government pension while those who have never worked carry on as they are, that is far more annoying to me that the ultra rich tax dodging.

 

[Himse]

The rich already contribute more tax than anyone else. They contribute to the economy more than anyone else.

Schools are shit because everyone is educated towards passing an exam, rather than being educated. Thick kids trained to choose the correct answer on a multiple choice test.

Non academic kids should be pointed in the direction of more manual work.

They are even too afraid to separate the non academic from the academic kids these days. Everyone is equal and all that bollocks.

This is true, but it's the same in so many areas not just school (the driving test is a perfect example, teaches you sod all about actually driving and just ticks the boxes)

It's just strange we're more interested in teaching about fluff and not pushing kids to be smart. Seems they're more interested in how they wear their tie than actually learning.

 

[Gwadien]

The rich already contribute more tax than anyone else. They contribute to the economy more than anyone else.



This is true, but it's the same in so many areas not just school (the driving test is a perfect example, teaches you sod all about actually driving and just ticks the boxes)

It's just strange we're more interested in teaching about fluff and not pushing kids to be smart. Seems they're more interested in how they wear their tie than actually learning.

Yes, but a lot of them should be contributing more - I'm not referring to small business owners, they dodge tax in order to survive, I mean the millionaires who do it so they can have another house, or another jag, It's not right that we've got a oh, poorer people can't defend theirselves, so they should work, but we can't do much about the rich, so lets leave that.

 

[Embattle]

Seems to be a lot of absolutes in this thread.

 

[ileks]

Scouse does have a point about the so called "super rich". I used to disagree but when you look at the numbers and the fact that it's getting worse, you just can't.

Taxing them in the present isn't the answer if you want economic growth.

IMO the key is inheritance tax. It needs to become not only illegal, but socially unacceptable to leave your kids vast amounts of wealth. How much better would the world be if this was the case? Wealthy and want your kids to do well? Then make sure they get the best possible education and have the same drive you did. Overall productivity would increase because of this, but we'd also be able to massively reduce income, corporation and capital gains tax leading to more growth and a better standard of living. Inheriting money needs to be thought of in the same way we think of inheriting power now - obviously a bad idea.

 

[Himse]

It's just a pitchfork and torch kind of thing to people on the opposite ends of the scale - poorer people want to bleed rich people and vice versa.

The fact it really, it's neither sides contribution or lack of, it's the misuse of the money that is being contributed.

 

[Gwadien]

The over all point i'm making is that you can't complain about dole scroungers, unless you also complain about tax dodging and have to be equally passionate, otherwise it's just simple prejudice.

 

[Bodhi]

The over all point i'm making is that you can't complain about dole scroungers, unless you also complain about tax dodging and have to be equally passionate, otherwise it's just simple prejudice.

Well no, because the super-rich do contribute, creating jobs for people and paying lots of tax on all the lovely things they buy with their money. The ones I'm referring to contribute fuck all. I couldn't give a shit if someone is bone idle and doesn't fancy working, I don't have a problem with that at all. What I do have a problem with, is paying for it.

 

[Gwadien]

Well no, because the super-rich do contribute, creating jobs for people and paying lots of tax on all the lovely things they buy with their money. The ones I'm referring to contribute fuck all. I couldn't give a shit if someone is bone idle and doesn't fancy working, I don't have a problem with that at all. What I do have a problem with, is paying for it.

But you care about contribution, not about individuals lives, don't pretend you're like 'OMG, your life would be so much better if you worked' your mentality is 'Contribute, so we have more money' Because if it was about their good, then you'd be happy for them, because in their own little world, they're happy.

The super-rich do contribute, yes, but there are still a lot out there that do not contribute as much as they should, 'contributing' work both ways - as I said, a dole scrounger takes £40 every fortnight from the holy tax payers, whilst the super rich technically take probably 10x that (if not more)

 

[Scouse]

the super-rich do contribute paying lots of tax

Warren Buffet himself says that his secretary pays more than he does in tax as a percentage of her earnings and that it's wrong.

Out of a billionaire's mouth...

 

[Himse]

Warren Buffet himself says that his secretary pays more than he does in tax as a percentage of her earnings and that it's wrong.

Out of a billionaire's mouth...

He actually only salaries himself at 100k USD.

So he probably pays his secretary more, but his company pays next to no tax, not him.

Actually a quote - 'In 2013, capital gains for those earning more than $400,000 ($450,000 for couples) will be taxed at 20%, up from 15%. And high-income households also will pay an additional 3.8% in Medicare taxes on their investment income for the first time. The top marginal tax rate also rose for the wealthiest wage earners, but since Buffett's income is from investment gains, not wages, that's not a factor.'

 

[Scouse]

He actually only salaries himself at 100k USD.

That's either deliberately obtuse, a bad troll or straight up idiocy Himse.

I've posted the link before and if you're actually interested it's very easy to find. Buffet was saying that despite being a billionaire his wealth is taxed at a far lower rate than his not-rich employees.

 

[Moriath]

You see labour today saying that they are going to make the minimum wage closer to the average wage. But don't they know if you raise the minimum the average will rise as well. You will never catch it up.

 

[Tom]

The rich already contribute more tax than anyone else. They contribute to the economy more than anyone else.

That's because they have more money than anyone else.

 

[Scouse]

You see labour today saying that they are going to make the minimum wage closer to the average wage. But don't they know if you raise the minimum the average will rise as well. You will never catch it up.

Basic maths fail. Of course you can get it closer in percentage terms.

 

[Bodhi]

Basic maths fail. Of course you can get it closer in percentage terms.

You don't think raising the minimum wage will raise everyone else's wages, in turn driving up the average?

 

[Jupitus]

Basic maths fail. Of course you can get it closer in percentage terms.

He says catch it up.... technically true.

 

[Moriath]

Basic maths fail. Of course you can get it closer in percentage terms.

Comprehension is your friend

 

[soze]

Increasing the minimum wage will force the price of absolutely everything up and make it harder for people who earn just above minimum wage to live. You could also lose industry to other countries where the wages are cheaper. And see small companies fold where they can not afford the raise in wages and the new pension scheme which is set to hit employers fairly hard.

Not to mention your average couch dweller would still look at cleaning toilets as menial work and refuse to do it. And as the cost of everything had to go up so these companies could afford the new minimum wage you know that there will be a similar increase in benefits as well.

 

[Scouse]

Believe the scary hype losers.

When the minimum wage was much higher in the US historically they went through massive growth.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABM0_L_5vLw


Productivity gains because of worker efficiency went straight into the pockets of business owners and shareholders.

As for the maths of it - yep things would go up in price, the average wage would raise (slightly) - but the gains from a higher minimum wage vastly outweigh the marginal losses. Marginal losses...

 

[Scouse]

Nice to see you've rated the post funny before you've even had the time to watch the video @Raven.

If you're not interested in debate, why even read the thread?

 

[Raven]

Well for a start, increased productivity in toilet cleaning? So they spent less time cleaning the bogs and were therefore employed for less hours or required less staff? So people ended up being paid less...or what?

Person A takes 8 hours to clean all the bogs in a office block at £6.00 an hour (£48.00)
Person B takes 6 hours to clean the same bogs for £7.50 an hour (£45.00)

A company isn't going to pay them for 8 hours if they can do it in 6, are they? Productivity means nothing for most minimum wage jobs. Most jobs where productivity is key already get paid more than minimum wage, or have some sort of bonus scheme.

If companies can afford to pay a higher minimum wage it can be argued that the growth is already there.

DecreaseInPiratesVSGlobalWarming.jpeg

 

[Himse]

That's either deliberately obtuse, a bad troll or straight up idiocy Himse.

I've posted the link before and if you're actually interested it's very easy to find. Buffet was saying that despite being a billionaire his wealth is taxed at a far lower rate than his not-rich employees.

misread - quickly skimmed, my bad!

 

[Gwadien]

Anyone been watching In The Flesh? - I think it draws parallels with this discussion on society.

 

[Scouse]

Mwaaah! Now I've been caught not bothering to even look at someone's argument I'm definitely not gonna watch that video and post more crap that the video renders irrelevant...

*earmuffs* I ain't never gonna challenge my own beliefs ffs! *earmuffs*

Fixed.

 

[Raven]

No, its called work. I can't view random youtube clips at work. I was commenting on the text of your post. But feel free to use that as an excuse to not answer my post, not overly bothered either way

 

[Bodhi]

Nice to see you've rated the post funny before you've even had the time to watch the video @Raven.

If you're not interested in debate, why even read the thread?

What, like someone suggesting I move out of Stoke when the post in particular clearly states I live in Stafford? Which is about half an hour away?

 

[Moriath]

Stafford, Stoke. They are all the same grim northern towns

 

[Gwadien]

work

OH SNAP, SHOTS FIRED