That's where our priorities differ then, Ubes. Yes, there are a minority of low-level wasters who might get support they don't deserve, but their impact is miniscule compared to that of the tax evaders and avoiders.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
That's where our priorities differ then, Ubes. Yes, there are a minority of low-level wasters who might get support they don't deserve, but their impact is miniscule compared to that of the tax evaders and avoiders.
Exactly this!
Take away disabled people's benefits yet let the big firms avoid paying tax. In nobodies brain is that fair or logical
But that ain’t the point I was making. Why move it in to tax evaders and (although perfectly legal the last time I looked) avoiders?
If somebody can’t avoid a certain way of life, including having children, why should the taxpayers make it so for them? Of course, everybody has the right to have children, but why should it be at somebody else’s expense? Basically, they’re using their babies as a means to access all sorts of things that their own endeavours fall short on delivering. I wonder how much of the welfare state is used to support families that could never support themselves from the off. Perhaps this money could’ve been used on the disabled and dying and then what support them?
Frankly, as far as I can see the real difference between the left and the right is that those on the left are more confortable with spending other people’s money.
I accepted your point about welfare wasters, Ubes - no argument there. My further point, though, was that people or organisations managing, by whatever means, not to pay to pay a fair amount of tax are much more of a drain on the public purse. Tory governments have always, and will always, prioritise the haves over the have-nots.
Frankly, as far as I can see the real difference between the left and the right is that those on the right are more comfortable with exploiting vulnerable people and denying them rights.
everybody knows their rights
what about their responsibilities
close all the tax loopholes
the labour party had plenty of time to sort it out when in charge
its not just a tory problem
what about their responsibilities
close all the tax loopholes
the labour party had plenty of time to sort it out when in charge
its not just a tory problem
It is sad indeed, but might I suggest that you re-read the blog I posted earlier?
with all this tax avoidance and tax loopholes... it's really sad that they exist... is there a simple way to shut it all down? I'm not really sure.
I'm not going to argue that there aren't Tories that are racist (i'm sure a lot of the old guard are still imperialistic) and about keeping old money, i don't think the whole Tory way to the common person (lets face it millions upon millions vote for them) is to keep old money with new. It's to reduce wastage/expenditure, able to earn as much for oneself without having it mandatorily taken away (if you want to give to charity you do) and more about people taking responsibility for their own lives and trying to better themselves.
I'm generally of that view. I understand that it's not as simple as that (or at least thats the image i get). Not everyone wants to work and not be able to save up for the finer things in life and not everyone can get a good job (just look at the way sports direct and other companies take advantage with zero hours contracts). Likewise, London is a hoover for lots of lovely jobs whereas somewhere like Middlesbrough isn't exactly teaming with great jobs and forces people to relocate (which then takes away from the economy), in which case that's where we have our welfare state.
Likewise, i expect us to support our disabled and old.
I'm totally in agreement with uber_hoop. I don't think people who can't afford kids should be having them. At most, i can see people saying kids should be a right should get help with one. More than one and that's being greedy. Likewise, big families getting big homes. Whatever happened to kids sharing (i shared with my brother and sister).
It's not a right for your kids to be living in a 4 bedroom house because you have 3 kids, if you have this it's a giant priviledge.
Lastly, what i really dislike about the left is the identity politics and how there is no debate anymore. Everything is about shouting down anyone who opposes (not here of course hence i'm here) is either selfish, greedy, racist or a bigot.
I'm not going to argue that there aren't Tories that are racist (i'm sure a lot of the old guard are still imperialistic) and about keeping old money, i don't think the whole Tory way to the common person (lets face it millions upon millions vote for them) is to keep old money with new. It's to reduce wastage/expenditure, able to earn as much for oneself without having it mandatorily taken away (if you want to give to charity you do) and more about people taking responsibility for their own lives and trying to better themselves.
I'm generally of that view. I understand that it's not as simple as that (or at least thats the image i get). Not everyone wants to work and not be able to save up for the finer things in life and not everyone can get a good job (just look at the way sports direct and other companies take advantage with zero hours contracts). Likewise, London is a hoover for lots of lovely jobs whereas somewhere like Middlesbrough isn't exactly teaming with great jobs and forces people to relocate (which then takes away from the economy), in which case that's where we have our welfare state.
Likewise, i expect us to support our disabled and old.
I'm totally in agreement with uber_hoop. I don't think people who can't afford kids should be having them. At most, i can see people saying kids should be a right should get help with one. More than one and that's being greedy. Likewise, big families getting big homes. Whatever happened to kids sharing (i shared with my brother and sister).
It's not a right for your kids to be living in a 4 bedroom house because you have 3 kids, if you have this it's a giant priviledge.
Lastly, what i really dislike about the left is the identity politics and how there is no debate anymore. Everything is about shouting down anyone who opposes (not here of course hence i'm here) is either selfish, greedy, racist or a bigot.
You must log in or register to see images
Is this one of those far-right rallies I keep reading about in The Guardian?
Corbyn's a big fan of Russian and Cuba, and set out Venezuela as a model state. How well do vulnerable people do in those countries? Tax evasion and misleading, complex tax avoidance schemes should be stamped on hard. But Corbyn's ideas of taking us back to the 1970's when Labour taxed the rich 98p in the £1, so they left and paid their taxes elsewhere just won't work. Look at the underperforming French economy after a Socialist Government (a lot of the wealthy tax payers came to the UK to pay their tax) and current industrial action. It will take Macron years to get the country back to a positive footing.
I try to pay as little tax as possible, nothing wrong with that.
Here's my dilemma regarding people who can't afford to raise their kids unless they have help from the state, charity, whatever.... If people have children and find themselves unable to support them properly, then without support, the children will suffer through no fault of their own.
Can that be right? What should we do instead? Put them all in the workhouse? Take the kids away and foster them to people with more money? If what we do today isn't the right thing, I really don't know what the right thing is. Anyone?
Can that be right? What should we do instead? Put them all in the workhouse? Take the kids away and foster them to people with more money? If what we do today isn't the right thing, I really don't know what the right thing is. Anyone?
Pay the parents only limited state cash. Help the kids by free school breakfasts, free school lunches, access to school sports fields and voluntary run clubs, access to healthcare incl dentists etc
Funnily enough, I often think that a 21st century equivalent of the workhouse isn’t such a bad idea. Such establishments could provide a safe, comfortable environment for both mother (and father) and child whilst requiring the parent(s) to work to (at least partially) support their situation.
Unfortunately, I suspect unions and rights activists would be all over it before it even got off the ground. But such institutions could help install or restore a person’s self-esteem, which seems to me to be at the heart of most personal issues.
There are estimated to be 1 million more children from working households growing up in poverty now than there were in 2010 - a 50% increase.
https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/child-poverty-working-households-1-million-children-2010-says-tuc
It's well documented that no-one resident in a workhouse found that it improved their sense of self esteem. Quite the opposite. Despite what the people running them would say... That truly isn't an answer unless the objective is to punish people and ensure their kids never get a fair start in life.
Would you put a mother and children into the workhouse who had lost their husband/father through illness? Or a man with kids who's wife had run off with someone else?
Not trying to argue with you or take a moral stand - just struggling thinking about a difficult situation and without any answers.