[Chumbaniya]

(Original post by CandyFlipper)
Clearly depends on how one defines "necessary" benefits, no? Also, what's your beef with tax avoidance? It's legal and perfectly natural to do it.

It's also perfectly legal to claim benefits. Being perfectly legal does not mean that something is beneficial to the country. Personally I feel that very high earners paying a lower overall tax rate than middle-income individuals who cannot afford expensive legal services is not only a bigger hit to the economy than our supposed 'benefits culture', but also a far greater display of the greed and selfishness that those on the right habitually accuse benefit claimants of.

[CandyFlipper]

(Original post by Chumbaniya)
It's also perfectly legal to claim benefits. Being perfectly legal does not mean that something is beneficial to the country. Personally I feel that very high earners paying a lower overall tax rate than middle-income individuals who cannot afford expensive legal services is not only a bigger hit to the economy than our supposed 'benefits culture', but also a far greater display of the greed and selfishness that those on the right habitually accuse benefit claimants of.

The difference is that in one case people want to keep the money they've earnt and in the other, they want someone elses money. I think we have different definitions of selfishness.

[nickster146]

i agree that the benefits system in this country is flawed. it needs to be totally overhauled in my opinion as too many people are abusing it. however, you know what i really hate? multimillionaires who hide their money in offshore accounts so that the government cant tax it. they've made their money from the public, and yet try as hard as they can to ensure the public wont get any of it back. they are the ones who are draining this country dry, the state is losing out on hundreds of billions. i think that both groups (fraudulent benefit claimants and tax avoiders) should be targeted by the state, rather than just one or the other, if we want to see some real positive changes in this country.

[Chumbaniya]

(Original post by CandyFlipper)
The difference is that in one case people want to keep the money they've earnt and in the other, they want someone elses money. I think we have different definitions of selfishness.

I think people tend to have a lot of ideas about the ownership of money which don't hold up to a great deal of scrutiny. The fact that an individual earns a particular wage does not entitle them to the entirety of that wage - indeed they would be utterly incapable of having their job without the help of the society they live in. I find it short-termist in the extreme to suggest that taxation is 'taking' money from people that they have earned, when the fact is that they have the good fortune to live in a society which has seen sufficient communal investment to support highly paid jobs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm quite happy for people to be paid wages that are in accordance with the economic demand for the work that they do. I just think that they should understand the context within which they are paid that wage - namely that the work of others and of society in general contributes a great deal to their ability to do their work.

[Quady]

(Original post by Chumbaniya)
I think people tend to have a lot of ideas about the ownership of money which don't hold up to a great deal of scrutiny. The fact that an individual earns a particular wage does not entitle them to the entirety of that wage - indeed they would be utterly incapable of having their job without the help of the society they live in. I find it short-termist in the extreme to suggest that taxation is 'taking' money from people that they have earned, when the fact is that they have the good fortune to live in a society which has seen sufficient communal investment to support highly paid jobs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm quite happy for people to be paid wages that are in accordance with the economic demand for the work that they do. I just think that they should understand the context within which they are paid that wage - namely that the work of others and of society in general contributes a great deal to their ability to do their work.

But that would be evasion not avoidance.

Do you have a problem with people (millionaires if you like) putting money into ISAs to avoid tax?

[Chumbaniya]

(Original post by Quady)
But that would be evasion not avoidance.

Do you have a problem with people (millionaires if you like) putting money into ISAs to avoid tax?

Actually this argument serves for both tax evasion and tax avoidance. Evasion is a much simpler issue, in fact - it's just illegal. My argument centres around the ideology of the ownership of money, and not on which particular practices to avoid taxes are legal.

Something like an ISA doesn't cause me any stress at all - it's available to anyone and has a strict limit on the amount that can be invested in each year. I would be very surprised if any individuals valued in the millions stored a significant proportion of their moeny in ISAs.

What I do object to is people making all of their money within Britain but manipulating their home addresses and the addresses their companies operate from in order to avoid tax that would be paid were the money in Britain. I object to moving money around and putting it in different names so that HMRC will interpret it as having extra allowances and lower tax rates compared to what the individual who is really in control of the money would pay if the money was all clearly linked to him/her.

[ConnorB]

Benefits was originally designed so that the people who needed them could achieve greater things with them and accomplish something with their lives and then (hopefully) repay that money back with their success.

It's somewhat insulting what it's become now...

[OU Student]

Those who claim many are abusing the system - where's your evidence and why haven't you reported them?

[chefdave]

(Original post by Barden)
I'm sure that just as many people would leave the UK if enough countries opened their borders.

But in response to what you said, why have so many of them gone back?

Except that most countries aren't foolish or suicidal enough to pursue policies that hasten their own destruction. They have a bit more self respect than that.

[Barden]

(Original post by chefdave)
Except that most countries aren't foolish or suicidal enough to pursue policies that hasten their own destruction. They have a bit more self respect than that.

How about those 12 'mostly wealthy' countries that signed the Treaty of Maastricht as you mentioned earlier?

[chefdave]

(Original post by Barden)
How about those 12 'mostly wealthy' countries that signed the Treaty of Maastricht as you mentioned earlier?

Yes, and look at the mess they've got themselves in because they listened to the 'social democrats' and pursued a course of economic and social vandalism coupled with a heavy dose of multiculturalist dogma. Western Europe has been on the brink of economic collapse for the past 4 years and the Eurozone has just about held together by turning the weakest nations like Greece into into protectorates and funding the whole thing by gouging money from the Germans. Look at those 12 nations indeed.

[Barden]

(Original post by chefdave)
Yes, and look at the mess they've got themselves in because listened to the 'social democrats' and pursued a course of economic and social vandalism coupled with a heavy dose of multiculturalist dogma. Western Europe has been on the brink of economic collapse for the past 4 years and the Eurozone has just about held together by turning the weakest nations like Greece into into protectorates and funding the whole thing by gouging money from the Germans. Look at those 12 nations indeed.

What's that got to do with immigration?

Yes, the Euro was about international cooperation, but at the time (for the countries involved) it was the economically sensible thing to do. For us however, it was not, thus we didn't join.

Surely if it was all part of 'the multicultural experiment' then 'Labour's Stasi government' would have jumped right in???

[Barden]

(Original post by Chumbaniya)
Actually this argument serves for both tax evasion and tax avoidance. Evasion is a much simpler issue, in fact - it's just illegal. My argument centres around the ideology of the ownership of money, and not on which particular practices to avoid taxes are legal.

Something like an ISA doesn't cause me any stress at all - it's available to anyone and has a strict limit on the amount that can be invested in each year. I would be very surprised if any individuals valued in the millions stored a significant proportion of their moeny in ISAs.

What I do object to is people making all of their money within Britain but manipulating their home addresses and the addresses their companies operate from in order to avoid tax that would be paid were the money in Britain. I object to moving money around and putting it in different names so that HMRC will interpret it as having extra allowances and lower tax rates compared to what the individual who is really in control of the money would pay if the money was all clearly linked to him/her.

(Original post by im so academic)
QFA

[chefdave]

(Original post by Barden)
What's that got to do with immigration?

Yes, the Euro was about international cooperation, but at the time (for the countries involved) it was the economically sensible thing to do. For us however, it was not, thus we didn't join.

Surely if it was all part of 'the multicultural experiment' then 'Labour's Stasi government' would have jumped right in???

It's all part and parcel of the same ideology, the one that champions collectivisation wherever possible and the 'blending' out of successful Western citizens with immigrants from failed states.

As for the Euro I don't know why Labour didn't make their case for us joining the single currency. Perhaps they lacked the courage? Maybe they knew the British wouldn't stand for it? Perhaps it was an all too obvious display of their unpalatable Euro-federalist aspirations? They never got a mandate to do so? We can only guess, but I for one don't either know or care what goes through a Labour politician's head.

[Barden]

(Original post by chefdave)

As for the Euro I don't know why Labour didn't make their case for us joining the single currency. Perhaps they lacked the courage? Maybe they knew the British wouldn't stand for it? Perhaps it was an all too obvious display of their unpalatable Euro-federalist aspirations? They never got a mandate to do so? We can only guess, but I for one don't either know or care what goes through a Labour politician's head.

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

The most likely explanation is the one I suggested. That we didn't enter the Euro because it was the wrong thing to do, economically, at that time.

[tamimi]

I hope OP never becomes a decision-making politician.

[billydisco]

(Original post by chefdave)
Stressful? Probably. Productive? Nope. The City is the most rapacious trougher in the country, it's certainly not to be commended as a paragon of economic virtue and self sacrifice. In my eyes they're slightly above the slimeballs we get in local government who pay themselves mega-wages for producing very little. Don't mistake working hard/long hours/in a stressful job with productivity, it's not the same thing at all.

You do realise London is the #1 financial centre in the world right? Do you even understand how much GDP it contributes? It varies between 10 and 20% of GDP!

[billydisco]

(Original post by Chumbaniya)
It's also perfectly legal to claim benefits. Being perfectly legal does not mean that something is beneficial to the country. Personally I feel that very high earners paying a lower overall tax rate than middle-income individuals who cannot afford expensive legal services is not only a bigger hit to the economy than our supposed 'benefits culture', but also a far greater display of the greed and selfishness that those on the right habitually accuse benefit claimants of.

Did benefit claimants earn the money? No
Did tax avoiders earn the money? Yes

[billydisco]

(Original post by Chumbaniya)
I think people tend to have a lot of ideas about the ownership of money which don't hold up to a great deal of scrutiny. The fact that an individual earns a particular wage does not entitle them to the entirety of that wage - indeed they would be utterly incapable of having their job without the help of the society they live in. I find it short-termist in the extreme to suggest that taxation is 'taking' money from people that they have earned, when the fact is that they have the good fortune to live in a society which has seen sufficient communal investment to support highly paid jobs.

Oh what a load of socialist crap!

Good fortune? These people worked HARD.

(Original post by Chumbaniya)
Don't get me wrong, I'm quite happy for people to be paid wages that are in accordance with the economic demand for the work that they do. I just think that they should understand the context within which they are paid that wage - namely that the work of others and of society in general contributes a great deal to their ability to do their work.

Care to tell me how "society" has allowed these people to earn lots of money?

A banker in London makes money from foreign clients. He went to private prep school, private secondary school and then paid full fees for university. How has UK society enabled him to earn lots of money from foreign investors?

[billydisco]

(Original post by tamimi)
I hope OP never becomes a decision-making politician.

Haven't you got a fuel strike to plan?