workshy_fopp

Kyl3cook - So you're not a Socialist then?

Kyl3cook

it's not as simple as that, because I do understand that there are people who genuinely need assistance, but there has to be a line, and I have had enough of the lazy scum sponging off the government....and in turn, you and I. The government are partly to blame for letting them! the whole system needs a revamp.

btw, I'm not even close to the 40% tax bracket for income...but I do feel strongly about the way it works.

milo

racist ****

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

That's a contradiction. Either EVERYBODY can live within walking distance of work, or there are some people who can NOT live within walking distance. If I am fortunate enough to get a job in an office that is well served by public transport, then somebody else can not have that same job.

As long as some of the jobs that exist are in places that are not well served by public transport, there will be people who cannot get to work by public transport. Whether the people who work there do so by choice or because all the jobs within walking distance of their homes are filled is immaterial.

The only meaningful choice that many of us can make is what to drive, not if to drive. I have no problem with paying more tax on a thirstier car. What I object to is being punitively taxed because I happen to be one of those people whose place of work is not well served by public transport. I cannot simply choose to have another similarly paid job that brings the same sort of money into the country - I spent a year looking and there aren't any.

milo

this is interesting, because chances are then, you're being HEAVILY subsidised by higher tax payers.

out of your two categories:
you do realise that in your model here, as a non-higher bracket tax payer, you fall into the "bone idle" category?

milo

but you took your original job in the first place tho, right?

Kyl3cook

I think you've got a chip on your shoulder! ... I know I didn't make that comment, but it relates to what you said to me!!! you said that I should leave my own country...however I think it would be better if you were to leave my country! It's not that I dislike americans, but it is because I dislike you!

therefore not racist!

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

The problem is is that it DOESN'T benefit the economy. The government claims they need the revenue. But where will it go? It will go to the those who sponge off the system, the ones that burden and fight for every hand out they can get.

If the average Joe Public could see a improvement to the towns and cities, the reduction of crime, the improvement of health services and schools it would never cause so much complaint. But year upon year taxation for the average working person rises in one way or another. And no benefit is seen, increase in crime, increase in NSH waiting lists, Bed shortages, decaying roads, ancient failing rail system, poor bus network that only serves "main routes" leaving people in remote villages stranded (including elderly with no cars). Pensioners recieving a pittance, dying from hypothermia due to the heating being cut off even though they worked and paid tax all of their life whilst an immigrant, gets given a warm welcome and free housing and benefits.

I know full well extra revenue raised from this scheme will just get wasted down the same drain through inefficiency, red tape, Europe, benefits, asylum and immigration This is why I refuse to accept any other excuse to increase taxation, as there is no reform on the way it is spent.

If the money actually went where it was needed - such as public transport, then perhaps we could scrap our cars.

But our living expense increases (through taxation and economy), we need more money to support our families (and mortgages). So we need a high paid job, so the average Joe is forced to look further to find a higher paid job, the job could be 100's of miles away, they can either move to that area (normally more costly- refer to North South migration studies). Or stay and travel, and rely on the car. Why is the living expense so high, oh it's because UK businesses are taxed to death as well, so can't pay such generous wages.

I notice Milo you say you come from the US, do most state schools have school buses to take kids to and from their local schools? Perhaps if all that taxation the UK wastes was put to employ the same system then we wouldn't have mums in 4x4's and MPV's clambering over curbs at 8:50am every morning clogging up our roads.

milo

i didnt make the comment to you.

note the quote i made in my post, from rav, who called me a yank *******. that's what's racist.

your comment of "i dislike you" isn't racist at all. it's just childish.

milo

yes it will go to those that burden the system, which is the vast majority of people. thats how taxation works.

hopefully it will go to the nhs.

rav4640

and what are your views on this affecting the haulage industry milko, the industry that gets your goods to the shops, extra costs can only go one way, and thats to the shopper,

Trem

iTrader: (3)

LOL, yes you are right. The public transport system we have now is fantastic and not at all ****e.

Take your nose out of Blairs **** and wake up and smell the coffee will ya.

Kyl3cook

no, wrong again, as I'm saying all people should pay the same for taxes...the fact is we pay more tax than we should to subsidise the non-working (through choice), benefit reaping (because they can) people of this country! I'm saying those people should pay their bloody taxes and do some damn work, and thus the people in the top bracket wouldn't have to shell out more to pay for them to get drunk! My father works near 90 hours a week and he's 65...he owns a very successful business which he built up from £40 in the late 70's, and worked hard all his life! for what?!? to be screwed over by 'false insurance claiming', 'accident claiming' dicks! I'm bemused as to how anyone can see this as just!

rav4640

i,m all for improving the nhs, but its always the car owner thats hit when the gov want more cash

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

My first job after gradulation was right next to a railway station, so I commuted by train. Shortly afterwards, my office moved. I don't think my various employers have ever stayed in one place for more than a year or so - and if I quit every time I couldn't get to work by public transport I'd have spent half my (potentially) working life on the dole.

The crucial point here is that cigarette smoking has no positive side. I hate the smell of tobacco smoke, and its production doesn't achieve anything. So you're right, I'm in favour of it being taxed heavily.

milo

i didnt say the public transport system was good. its severely under-funded.

the nhs is a life-saver for millions of people however.

and i bet you're glad that you don't have to pay for your childrens' school fees, and that university education in england costs a fraction of what it does in other countries.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

This is a common misconception. Higher rate taxpayers are in a sufficiently small minority that the money raised from the higher rate tax band is small compared to that which is raised from the majority who are not. Those who mindlessly chant 'tax the rich' are succumbing to the politics of jealousy without looking at the numbers.

Kyl3cook

the nhs needs to be abolished. My sister is a doctor (medical)...and agrees that it is a farce. Drop taxes used for it, and pay for the bloody treatment as and when you need it.

milo

if you re-read the article, you will see this:

how is this not a benefit?

i suspect that since the haulage industry does NOT cause major congestion and as the vast majority of the mileage is not in urban areas, you will actually be SAVING money from this approach.

ive NEVER said diesel for the haulage industry should be heavily taxed btw, if you honestly think im on here to try to ruin your job.. im not.

milo

the "positive" side is that it keeps people in work making cigarettes, selling cigarettes etc etc. just like the alleged "positive" side to polluting the environment is that it keeps you in work.

seems interesting that you're in favor of taxing heavily something that you don't use.. but not taxing heavily something that you do use.

milo

and if that happened, due to the very rich not having to pay the ridiculous sums they have to, since you're NOT in the higher tax bracket, you would have to pay MORE.

YOU are not funding people who are on the dole. the people in the 40% bracket are funding the people on the dole AND they're funding you.

for example, i highly doubt you've paid back a fraction of what it cost to educate you yet.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

That's not so surprising really, is it? Soon you'll be surprised that I'm inclined to vote for political parties whose policies I believe will benefit me!

Why do you think it is that I don't smoke?

rav4640

i do deliveries into london 3 times a week at least and get hit by the congestion charge that i have to cover myself, and now they are thinking of bringing a per mile charge to add to that, i dont want to be out of work, but carrying extra costs like the can only send me one way, i dont have a very high profit margin as it is, nor do i think many others do in the haulage industry, it was rising fuel costs that caused me to down size from an artic which i ran for 6 years to a van in the hope i could still survive

Kyl3cook

I have in fact paid back all of my university fees...I was in private education throughout my life, so my parents have paid for that! I owe this country no money (well I owe mitsubishi some). Where is the line which says that the 23% of tax I pay is not enough to pay for all the benefits I recieve? I may in fact only need to pay 15% to support myself in my life, and the rest goes to the low lifes!...where did you get the information stating that the higher earners are paying for me? I'd like to know, because I do not use many of the governemts institutions!...you can't know because you don't know what I benefit from taxation.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

It makes no difference - it's just spin.

Assume an under-funded NHS, then consider these two scenarios:

a) The Government introduces a new tax, and the people are told that the NHS will receive 100% of the revenue thus raised. The people accept this and they're happy, because they know their extra taxes are being put to good use.

b) The Government slashes its defense budget, and gives the money instead to the NHS. Now the same Government introduces a new tax, and the people are told that the military will receive 100% of the revenue thus raised. Are they so happy now?

Do you understand now, why saying that money will go to some good cause or other is just spin? Tax is tax.

tiggers

You make some good points there hedgehog, thanks for the reply.

tiggers.

rav4640

oh by the way if anyone out there requires a big van for deliveries in the uk or europe pm me i could do with the work {little plug, hope you all dont mind}

Leslie

Hedgehog's original point is quite right of course and the only power that the People still have is the vote. The politicians are still frightened of that and that always shows when election time comes around. All of a sudden they start to show concern for the electorate, at least until the election is over that is.

Hutton D has got it about right too. Milo you are living in your own "dreamland". If you cannot see what is steathily being done in this country and the EU then you should take a look at it all with an unbiased view! Of course they want total control over our lives, that is the way to absolute power, knowledge is power and all the proposed "modernisations" are slanted to achieving that. Modernisation is another word for changing things around to suit those in power, never for the real good of the electorate. Given a few years then they would certainly be fitting us with personal chips and Logan's Run will become a reality! Read your Orwell, now there was a far seeing man. How much longer before they get rid of effective voting I wonder?

OllyK

That's assuming of course that he wasn't privately educated!

Personally I'd have no problem seeing the NHS scraped. It swallows huge amounts of cash and doesn't seem to get any better. I'd be happy to pay in to Health Insurance scheme as an alternative in the event that I may need treatment at some time in the future.

If I choose to have kids, then I would be happy to support them and pay for their education, as my parents did for me. Having kids is a lifestyle choice, nobody forces you, so you should have to pay the costs associated with them, otherwise please can the 16 year old single Mum's please start paying for my lifestyle choices?

the moose

Funny that, 'cos heart bypasses are now routine, heart/lung transplants no longer uncommon, and what can be done with cancer care beggars belief. I guess that doesn't count as improvement, does it?

<Daily Mail mode>
But no, you're probably right. The NHS is ****, has never got better, and the people employed there are lazy, workshy scroungers. They sit around doing nowt all day, not bothering to treat the ever-lengthening queues, because they're all being paid masses to sit on their fat *****.

EVERY PENNY is spent on expensive consultants and fat-cat administrators, every one of whom drives a BMW. Probably.
</Daily Mail mode>

The NHS was consistently underfunded during the Thatcher/Major era. Guess what? It stopped improving. After nearly a decade of investment, it's finally starting to get to the point where it's no longer a laughing stock amongst European nations, and can deliver what we as a nation quite rightly demand. It's sure as hell not perfect, but it's improved out of all recognition (at least in my experience, in my area) in the last five years, admittedly from 'crap' to 'blimey, it's not too bad now'.