Why do rich people pay more tax ?

Chaps

Under James Gallaghan the top rate of tax was 83p in the pound and we lost a lot of good people who went abroad.

My own view is that we should look after the rich and talented hard workers because it is they who drag this country up.

The poor are generally a bunch of useless sods who mess things up for everyone else as well as themselves.

Nine times out of ten, when you see a chav you see a totally useless disptick and I begrudge paying tax to prop them up.

Regards

Mick
 
mick parry said:
Chaps

Under James Gallaghan the top rate of tax was 83p in the pound and we lost a lot of good people who went abroad.

My own view is that we should look after the rich and talented hard workers because it is they who drag this country up.
Click to expand...

i was with you for most of that

The poor are generally a bunch of useless sods who mess things up for everyone else as well as themselves.

Nine times out of ten, when you see a chav you see a totally useless disptick and I begrudge paying tax to prop them up.
Click to expand...

unfortunatly you have shown with that statement that you are uncaring stereotyping middle english twat.
 
that's right mick, round 'em up, put 'em in a field and bomb the bastards.
who else is the govornment going to conscript when it starts another illegal and immoral war? the lower classes have always traditionally been cannon fodder and we'll ned them more than ever in the near future.....

cheers


julian
 
Julian
Scarily close to the truth.
maybe Mick will loose all his money and false stature, he may make decent cannon fodder when we decide to make another illegal invasion of an ancient culture.
Mick, just think of the mother land and youll be fine!
 
7_V said:
I suspect that it would act as a disincentive to work and may result in an 'underclass' of people who live in near poverty by not working and surviving on the allowance.
Click to expand...
No change from now then, except that now we call it benefit.

Yes there will be a few who manage to get by on it. The problem we have now with the benefit system is that if they choose to work, they lose the benefit so they are no better off by working. With the 'Basic Income' system you would always be better off if you worked.

The only flaw I can see is that those who are very successful may be able to retire much younger than they otherwise might and this could make the scheme too expensive (i.e. those working would have to pay too much tax to make up for those who aren't working). But then again those retirees would only be in that position because they had earned a lot in their working lives and had therefore already paid a very large amount of tax so one could say they worked for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaps

Why this sympathy for the poor. The blunt truth is that they are a total pain in the ass.

The educated, hardworking and talented sector of the community raise standards and get things done. Generally speaking they improve themselves and the country year by year. We need people like that.

On the other hand, you have the useless buggers who will not work, will not educate themselves and generally just will not improve themselves.

Every town has its good areas and the bad areas, and the useless buggers who just sit on their asses doing nothing are a liability to themselves and to me.

There is more opportunities out there than ever before and it is down to us all to grab those opportunities for the benefit of ourselves and society.

If some retard wants to sit around or work in some dead end job, then fine, but please do not expect the rest of us to prop them up.

If you work you eat, if you doss around you go hungry.

That is life in the real world.

Regards

Mick
 
Mick
I started working life with nothing, did an apprenticship and hated it. Bummed around and was poor, didnt take hand outs or dole, just survived.
After different jobs i had a job i liked, it paid 150 a week but i loved it. I had an accident at work and again was poor, scraping by and doing with what i had.
Now after many years of self directed study i am an engineer with a comfortable (but not high) earning.
I have been poor, i have lived in the less enticing area's of Bristol, but i sorted myself and moved on.
Just because of someones financial status or post code is not a reason to judge them.

I would expect more from someone of your age and experience.
 
Quote

"I would expect more from someone of your age and experience."

Pennance

My age and experience has taught me that a Doctor is more useful to society than a chav.

Engineers, Architects, Designers, Salesmen, Estate Agents, TV Engineers, Plumbers, Computor Programmers etc are people who got off their asses and got trained to do a job.

Anyone can become one of the above if they put their mind to it and earn a good living and benefit our society at the same time.

Some chav living in squalor with no intention of improving himself is just a totally useless article who is wasting his own life and wasting our taxes.

Regards

Mick
 
With you rlogic Mick you would condemn 70% of people under 24 years of age!

After you cull this group where will the next influx of 'useful' ppl come from?

I didnt become an 'Engineer' proper until I was 25 (similar false start to Penance I guess) - but then I think I was born an engineer:)

Your comments make you sound a 10000 years old and a daily mail reader of the highest order.
 
technobear said:
No change from now then, except that now we call it benefit.

Yes there will be a few who manage to get by on it. The problem we have now with the benefit system is that if they choose to work, they lose the benefit so they are no better off by working. With the 'Basic Income' system you would always be better off if you worked.
Click to expand...
Good points.

However, 'benefits' will become more and more a temporary receipt only. The incidence of 'Invalidity Benefit' (currently very high in the UK to disguise true unemployment) is likely to fall until it's in line with the rest of Europe and other benefits will be awarded for a limited time period only.

There's nothing new about the basic issue that we're discussing. It's been discussed since the days of Elizabeth I. Before Elizabeth I, the Catholic Churches used to look after the poor but Henry VIII destroyed that infrastructure and Elizabeth I had to replace it. One big difference between pre-Welfare State and modern benefits is that money used to be awarded and paid for locally rather than nationally. The old system had more accountability and was in many ways better. These are possible arguments for a local income tax system as proposed by the Lib Dems.

But I digress.
 
First off I am a bit drunk I have had to deal with a bunch of tosser DJs and a load of drunks on the way back home so I apologise if what I say may seem harsh *init*

The poor aren't just lazy people, there is a miss conception that poor people are poor because they are lazy, this is not the always the case. Envrionmental factors play a huge part, I was lucky enough to born into a fairly middle class family where education was highly valued, therefore I now have a skill set worth quite some bit for employees I have spent 5 years in full time education since leaving school apart from a year out.

However I had the chance to this becuase my parents were supportive and could afford for me to do this, a lot of people simply do not get this chance and end up in poorly paid jobs for ever.

I've been to university, worked 9-5 in a professional part job, yet I can still see sympathy for the poor because I realise it is not always their fault.

I do how ever have zero sympathy for lazy tossers who choose this life style as I far as I am concerned they can f**k off to Mexico.l
 
Glad to see you're all having a bit of fun with this one :D .

Anyway, this tired little engineer has just got in from work and is off to bed, after producing more money for the chancellor's coffers.
 
chris,
that's a bit of a fallacy actually. tax credits mean you can earn up to 20k (ish) and still claim some sort of govt kickback. if you are below a certain threshold you can even claim council tax / housing benefit and still work (as long as it's over 16 hours per week).

mick,
if there were no 'untermenschen' who would these doctors treat and architects design for - in fact who would build your 20 room palace, clean your rooms and windows and unblock your loos at minimum wage? how rich would you be when you have to pay a doctors or an architects hourly rate for a waiter or for someone to keep those scary foreigners away from our sceptered isle?
don;t get me wrong i admire enterprise and initiative and can partially sympathise with you about those willfull long term doleies however this being a civilised country i think they are worthwhile putting up with for the safety net they abuse. is there a deeper agenda here? perhaps chav town is migrating into areas you own property in?
cheers


julian
 
Mick, you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

The world owes everyone a living, and they get it now, thanks to generous benefits that right wing tories hate to pay.

Face it, the poor have won, they are taking hard earned cash of the wealthy, and there's not one iota you can do about it.

Actually, its the low paid who create most of the wealth for the rich.

Did you know, btw Mick an asylum seeker bought a video camera with handouts from the state recently? caused a right fuss
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lt Cdr Data said:
Mick, you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

The world owes everyone a living, and they get it now, thanks to generous benefits that right wing tories hate to pay.

Face it, the poor have won, they are taking hard earned cash of the wealthy, and there's not one iota you can do about it.

Actually, its the low paid who create most of the wealth for the rich.

Did you know, btw Mick an asylum seeker bought a video camera with handouts from the state recently? caused a right fuss
Click to expand...

Actually this is a good point, who builds our houses, railways, our cars, roads. Who grows our food?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top