Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moggis)
    Well I for one am certainly not in favour of making benefits harder to claim.

    I spent a year caring for someone a while back and I had to wait nearly 6 months to claim benefits that the patient was clearly entitled to.

    Six months! To claim benefits for someone who couldn't even ******* well wash themselves!!

    Apart from that the problem I have with your post is that it is,I believe,out of touch with how an ever increasing number of people in this country and all over Europe are now thinking.

    It's not what's true that matters it's what people think is true.Especially in democracies.
    And you don't think we should fight to change what people are thinking rather than just accept that they think this way and react to that? I'm not interested in getting into an argument about immigration. The problems in this country (and around the world) largely come from the rich having an unfair share of the resources, not the poor (immigrants to a country or not) who end up jostling over jobs and welfare just to survive. We need to solve the problem of uneven income and resource distribution before anything else.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mscaffrey)
    And you don't think we should fight to change what people are thinking rather than just accept that they think this way and react to that? I'm not interested in getting into an argument about immigration. The problems in this country (and around the world) largely come from the rich having an unfair share of the resources, not the poor (immigrants to a country or not) who end up jostling over jobs and welfare just to survive. We need to solve the problem of uneven income and resource distribution before anything else.

    Sure.Change the way people are thinking.

    Why would I have a problem with that ? I certainly don't.

    How the hell you do it though I have no idea.


    As for the problem of uneven income and resource distribution,Jesus.

    The sheer number of people already in the world and the seemingly ever increasing numbers,not to mention basic human greed and selfishness will see to it that that battle almost certainly will be in vain.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stargirl63)
    You may get child benefit for the first 6, but you also get a bigger house, and more kids that we have to help put through education, more free school meals, more everything, and for what - so that they too go on benefits. Stereotype maybe, but there seems to be a trend that those on benefits have children on benefits too - reason being that work ethic is not instilled in them.

    I agree that we can't tell people what they spend their money on, however it's not their money, they haven't earned a penny, it's ours, it's the government's. If you loaned someone money (or should I say give, since we won't see this money again), and then they spent it on something that you disagreed with, wouldn't you be upset? I think in that way, money should be given in the form of food vouchers (or something along those lines).

    I'd love to see how many people are suddenly able to work, if benefits were cut tomorrow.

    Also LOL at the " bs British charities, dogs and cats" that made me laugh. I think the novelty in the charity is that it's a choice, rather than tax which is compulsory, ,so it makes them feel good about themselves. But I really don't know because I don't give to any charities.


    You don't give to any charities!?

    I'm surprised.

    Although I thought you might be joking about the restaurant bill which made me laugh I now of course realise that you are are deadly serious.

    But why does this matter so much to you? Why are you so passionate about this!?

    That's what I can't understand.

    Tell you what,forget that,just tell me what you would do about benefits if you could.

    Would you be happy if all benefits were cut by 30% say?

    You would give vouchers where possible .But I think that costs money.Someone will say.

    But the big things are the cost of housing benefit and not giving extra money for extra children.

    The problem is that the cost of housing benefit is of course inextricably linked to the shortage of houses and I dont see how you are going to solve that.

    As for penalising children,which it seems you would do,that is also fraught with difficulties . Not in the short term of course.But in the long term.

    Sorry I know this isn't very coherent and you don't need to reply,it's ok.

    But why stargirl63,why?

    What made you like this?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stargirl63)
    I agree. I got to where I am because of the average education my school provided. Give me the bill and I'll pay it. Just like how my university student loan is paid.

    Considering how many hundreds of pounds of tax I pay a month , I've probably paid it all off by now.
    (Original post by stargirl63)
    I agree. I got to where I am because of the average education my school provided. Give me the bill and I'll pay it. Just like how my university student loan is paid.

    Considering how many hundreds of pounds of tax I pay a month , I've probably paid it all off by now.

    You think your 'average' education is the only bill that needs paying? What about the hospital bill for where you were born, the education of the medical and nursing staff that attended you? The roads you're parents travelled to the hospital, the labour of every other cog in the wheel that has made your success possible. Man woman is not an island. Whether you like it or not your success has been enabled by the labour and investment of others.

    Good to know you're not shirking your tax liability though. Pity the big boys and girls didn't do like wise.
    (I'm assuming your not a ' big boy or girl' otherwise you wouldn't be in a student forum).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stargirl63)
    I agree. I got to where I am because of the average education my school provided. Give me the bill and I'll pay it. Just like how my university student loan is paid.

    Considering how many hundreds of pounds of tax I pay a month , I've probably paid it all off by now.
    You are only a net contributor if you earn over 30k a year (average wage being 27k). The tax precisely IS you paying back for what you've been benefiting from for 15 or 20 years. It's just that some can't pay, so you have to pay theirs too; ideally we would take income tax off workers and put it onto lazy land rentiers who collect unearned income without contributing at all to the economy.

    If we all paid back our own share exactly, apart from putting half the population into lifelong debt with unaccountable private providers like Wonga, we would have to pay more in toto because we would lose two things: 1. Economies of scale and 2. The premium from the fact the government can cover gaps by taking on debt cheaply and without risk of default.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stargirl63)
    I agree. I got to where I am because of the average education my school provided. Give me the bill and I'll pay it. Just like how my university student loan is paid.

    Considering how many hundreds of pounds of tax I pay a month , I've probably paid it all off by now.
    It doesn't seem like you actually know how benefits are paid for to boot.

    Benefits are paid for out of a hypothecated pot whose income is from National Insurance.

    This is only one of the reasons I find your reference to income tax baffling: the other is that income tax has precipitately reduced, particularly, although not exclusively, for the highest earners, over the past 40 years; and the present government has as one of its favourite trumpetings the cuts it has made to income tax for "the poorest" - that is, all those earning above £6,000, where the personal allowance was previously.

    The National Insurance pot has never been in danger of running out, not even in the depths of the recession or of 2010-12 austerity, and nor has it ever received a special cash injection from the Treasury (i.e. from your taxes).

    And yet I do not see you complaining about the level of National Insurance, which is regressive as can be: higher-rate taxpayers only pay a marginal rate of 2%, while everyone else pays 12%.

    In that sense, National Insurance is set up more or less the way you want: the people who take out (i.e. earning less than £30k) are, broadly speaking, the people who put in.

    If only our "average education" the taxpayer generously gave us had encompassed the subjects of economics and the public finances, eh? Then maybe we wouldn't have so many of us learning about it from Conservative Party election slogans and headlines written in the tabloid press.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moggis)
    You don't give to any charities!?

    I'm surprised.
    Sorry I know this isn't very coherent and you don't need to reply,it's ok.

    But why stargirl63,why?

    What made you like this?
    I don't give to any charities - reason being is because I know how it works. For example, I work in the pharmaceutical industry, dealing with pretty serious drugs - oncology, neurology and surgery equipment. I have seen (and quoted myself) the cost of these medications. Treatment costs £100k a year for a patient (and this isn't even the most expensive medication we sell). Greedy pharmaceutical manufacturers bumping up the price of tablets from £90 to £1200 per bottle and then us, as a pharmaceutical sales company, having to somehow talk out of our arse, and justify to patients why the price is extortionate. Whilst I watch the CEO drive away in an Aston Martin. So when I see someone saying "donate what you can to breast cancer", I almost find it ironic, that people genuinely think that their £20 donation actually makes a difference...you have probably bought that patient a days worth of treatment, if that. Not considering the proportion of your donation which is given to running the event, paying for the scientists, the background research, the cost of hiring the manufacturing plant to make the medication. Until I genuinely know for certain that my money is going to actually help the people who need it, rather than buying flash cars, I'm not going to bother.

    Charities hosted by celebrities e.g. Red Nose Day... I question the % of earnings the celebrities even contributed. Not the amount of money, the % of earnings. Because £10k to me is a lot of money, compared to celebrities who spend £10k on a club night out in Mayfair. So, if they aren't contributing loads for an event they are hosting, should we?! We hear celebrities who donate "millions" to charity - but that money is a drop in the ocean to them. They may as well have donated a tenner.

    Animal charities I don't care about.

    The way around this, is I give my time. So once every 2 weeks, I volunteer in a call center around 8 hours, for those suffering from domestic violence.

    In terms of tax - the reason why I get rather worked up, is not for myself, but for other people. Prior to my job, I worked in a payroll company. We were processing payment for those who were literally living on minimum wage, couldn't afford the electric bill, type of people. And I had to put their tax code on their paycheck and tax them, and I hated it. Because I knew that those people who worked hard, and honestly for their money were not getting their earn because the government think that just because they earn x amount, they can pay y amount of tax. A lot of these people owed money to pay back loans, had kids and dependents to feed etc and it was awful to know that the small amount they earned, they were taxed. The extra £5 a week that they were taxed on could have meant that they were able to keep the heating on a little longer during the night.

    I've seen my dad work 2 jobs, 14 hours a day work when I grew up, just to earn enough to live on. He would have probably only have had to work 11 hours a day if he wasn't taxed so much, and I would have been able to see him more as a child.

    Anyway , I hope I made sense. I personally don't mind tax that much, because I still get a decent wage a the end of it. But it's those on that borderline, of which there is a lot, that I wish were considered.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    We would never be able to compete with China, and it's not benefit's fault. It's wages, regulation etc.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moggis)
    (British)society doesn't value intelligence.

    It values money.

    And it doesn't give a toss how people aquire it so long as it doesn't involve robbing old people.

    Intelligence is one way of acquiring money,that's all.

    (Personally I think intelligence is overrated and only important to unattractive people.)


    (Sorry I realise this probably has nothing to add to your point )
    No quite to the contrary its an interesting point. I suppose intelligence is only valued in so far as it can make money which i agree with (unfortunately i tend to treat these perceptions as read so omit to include them) however this intelligence is the primary means by which to make money and therefore i would say that in essence intelligence is valued but indirectly as it is a proponent of capitalism.

    Aha well thats controversial lol. I think intelligence as defined by society in general is too closed a definition as it merely refers to one way of thinking because its still quite an abstract concept however personally i think the ability to exhibit comprehension, the ability to understand and analyse 'evidence' and most important of all pragmatism to reality (ie changing position if the other side has better facts) is more important than being attractive. Attractiveness has done very little for society as its a relative concept. If everyone was ugly af then there would still be the attractive ugly dichotomy within that group because there is no absolute. It wasnt attractive people that ended racism, won WW2, started the enlightenment and industrial revolution or pioneered science, all of which has improved life immeasurably so attractiveness is definitely a second for me.

    (Original post by stargirl63)
    Thanks for your post, that was really interesting to read, and was good to hear your side. It's one of those situations where there's always someone who is going to lose, so you need to see who you would rather piss off - the rich or the poor I guess.

    With regards to those other countries, the only reason Britain isn't like that is because we have a much fairer government than the other corrupted countries. I'd bet that if benefits were scrapped tomorrow, suddenly, there'd be a bunch of people healed, and ready for work.
    True, personally I'd rather annoy the rich because they by definition have money to spare so they can use some of it to repay the society that elevated them to that position. It seems unfair to punish the poor for not having resources, its a bit like beating up a starving man for not having food to give you.

    Advances in humanism and i suppose liberalism (though thats an oddly dirty word now) have led us to be more accepting in that regard however the benefit system was set up post ww2 to help soldiers who had been wounded in service so couldnt get a job, were ending up homeless and generally had a rubbish time of it. I dont deny it - though i would say how many would be genuinely ill but desperate to survive so work anyway - but to disadvantage those who need it because of a few cretins is grossly unfair particularly when tax evasion costs a lot more money than benefit fraud.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)

    Advances in humanism and i suppose liberalism (though thats an oddly dirty word now) have led us to be more accepting in that regard however the benefit system was set up post ww2 to help soldiers who had been wounded in service so couldnt get a job, were ending up homeless and generally had a rubbish time of it. I dont deny it - though i would say how many would be genuinely ill but desperate to survive so work anyway - but to disadvantage those who need it because of a few cretins is grossly unfair particularly when tax evasion costs a lot more money than benefit fraud.
    Tax evasion, even though it's a bigger impact on society than benefit fraud, tax evasion seems to be more moral (is that the right word?) than benefit fraud. Reason being tax evasion is fighting for what you have earned, whereas benefit fraud is essentially theft.

    I guess you can argue that tax evasion is theft from the government and from those who need it. (But how much of what we tax genuinely goes to those who need it.)

    I think the thing that annoys me is that benefit fraud has a high level of "self-entitlement". Those frauding genuinely believe that life is one big free ride.

    I just feel like we are all capable of something. There are people out there with illnesses,wheelchairs etc who still go about doing their daily activities. If you can't stand for long periods of time, find a sitting down job, if you can't work with people find a job that's more individual, if you can't commute then work from home, if you can't find a job...volunteer! There's always an option or a way of participating somehow in society.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bourdain)
    so our people can prosper
    "Our people" sounds like they're an inanimate object that you own, like "our washing machine". Besides we are all one species, human beings of the earth, maybe you should attempt to change your thinking.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stargirl63)
    I don't give to any charities - reason being is because I know how it works. For example, I work in the pharmaceutical industry, dealing with pretty serious drugs - oncology, neurology and surgery equipment. I have seen (and quoted myself) the cost of these medications. Treatment costs £100k a year for a patient (and this isn't even the most expensive medication we sell). Greedy pharmaceutical manufacturers bumping up the price of tablets from £90 to £1200 per bottle and then us, as a pharmaceutical sales company, having to somehow talk out of our arse, and justify to patients why the price is extortionate. Whilst I watch the CEO drive away in an Aston Martin. So when I see someone saying "donate what you can to breast cancer", I almost find it ironic, that people genuinely think that their £20 donation actually makes a difference...you have probably bought that patient a days worth of treatment, if that. Not considering the proportion of your donation which is given to running the event, paying for the scientists, the background research, the cost of hiring the manufacturing plant to make the medication. Until I genuinely know for certain that my money is going to actually help the people who need it, rather than buying flash cars, I'm not going to bother.

    Charities hosted by celebrities e.g. Red Nose Day... I question the % of earnings the celebrities even contributed. Not the amount of money, the % of earnings. Because £10k to me is a lot of money, compared to celebrities who spend £10k on a club night out in Mayfair. So, if they aren't contributing loads for an event they are hosting, should we?! We hear celebrities who donate "millions" to charity - but that money is a drop in the ocean to them. They may as well have donated a tenner.

    Animal charities I don't care about.

    The way around this, is I give my time. So once every 2 weeks, I volunteer in a call center around 8 hours, for those suffering from domestic violence.

    In terms of tax - the reason why I get rather worked up, is not for myself, but for other people. Prior to my job, I worked in a payroll company. We were processing payment for those who were literally living on minimum wage, couldn't afford the electric bill, type of people. And I had to put their tax code on their paycheck and tax them, and I hated it. Because I knew that those people who worked hard, and honestly for their money were not getting their earn because the government think that just because they earn x amount, they can pay y amount of tax. A lot of these people owed money to pay back loans, had kids and dependents to feed etc and it was awful to know that the small amount they earned, they were taxed. The extra £5 a week that they were taxed on could have meant that they were able to keep the heating on a little longer during the night.

    I've seen my dad work 2 jobs, 14 hours a day work when I grew up, just to earn enough to live on. He would have probably only have had to work 11 hours a day if he wasn't taxed so much, and I would have been able to see him more as a child.

    Anyway , I hope I made sense. I personally don't mind tax that much, because I still get a decent wage a the end of it. But it's those on that borderline, of which there is a lot, that I wish were considered.

    It's like you're two different people! Your first post made you cone across as pretty hard nosed but this one gets a thumbs up from me. Obviously I dont make regular donations to charity but my parents do. Esp my dad, he's a sucker for the begging voices at the other end of the phone. i know he was paying a substantial sum to various charities but these have been slashed back considerably after he and mum did a bit more research into how charities spend donations. Cancer research is particularly suss - a billion pound industry that gets the public to pay them to create medicines to sell back to us at extortionate prices that folk couldn't afford. Sounds like a scam rather than a respectable industry.
    Mum tends to answer the phone so she filters out the begging calls having no qualms about saying no. It's a shame though that charity is now a huge industry and like yourself my parents, and myself make practical contributions - food bank donations, volunteering etc. That way we know our modest input goes to where it's needed and not to pay an overpaid exec.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stargirl63)
    Tax evasion, even though it's a bigger impact on society than benefit fraud, tax evasion seems to be more moral (is that the right word?) than benefit fraud. Reason being tax evasion is fighting for what you have earned, whereas benefit fraud is essentially theft.

    I guess you can argue that tax evasion is theft from the government and from those who need it. (But how much of what we tax genuinely goes to those who need it.)

    I think the thing that annoys me is that benefit fraud has a high level of "self-entitlement". Those frauding genuinely believe that life is one big free ride.
    They're both theft.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tom78)
    "Our people" sounds like they're an inanimate object that you own, like "our washing machine". Besides we are all one species, human beings of the earth, maybe you should attempt to change your thinking.
    ok
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bourdain)
    We need to cut spending. This is the only way for our economy to grow and finally compete with countries like America and China.
    If corporations payed their bloody taxes like everyone else we wouldnt be in the economic sh**t we are in now
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    I may have put it across badly, my point is society values intelligence therefore the intelligent increase their class ranking by making money from their intelligence so they move from working class to upper class, class mobility means that the intelligent become higher class eventually therefore increasing the concentration of higher class individuals who are intelligent
    I consider myself intelligent, and in the process of completing my education, yet i'm still on benefits, so how does that work out??
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by stargirl63)

    I just feel like we are all capable of something. There are people out there with illnesses,wheelchairs etc who still go about doing their daily activities. If you can't stand for long periods of time, find a sitting down job, if you can't work with people find a job that's more individual, if you can't commute then work from home, if you can't find a job...volunteer! There's always an option or a way of participating somehow in society.
    You make it sound so bloody simple. It really isn't. I can't stand for long periods of time. I also can't sit for long periods of time. Just what do you suggest I do then? Most jobs require you to interact with people in some way and most work from home jobs either don't exist or are scams.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I_Mir)
    If corporations payed their bloody taxes like everyone else we wouldnt be in the economic sh**t we are in now
    Well we would we would just have an extra 20/30 billion


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    It doesn't seem like you actually know how benefits are paid for to boot.

    Benefits are paid for out of a hypothecated pot whose income is from National Insurance.

    This is only one of the reasons I find your reference to income tax baffling: the other is that income tax has precipitately reduced, particularly, although not exclusively, for the highest earners, over the past 40 years; and the present government has as one of its favourite trumpetings the cuts it has made to income tax for "the poorest" - that is, all those earning above £6,000, where the personal allowance was previously.

    The National Insurance pot has never been in danger of running out, not even in the depths of the recession or of 2010-12 austerity, and nor has it ever received a special cash injection from the Treasury (i.e. from your taxes).

    And yet I do not see you complaining about the level of National Insurance, which is regressive as can be: higher-rate taxpayers only pay a marginal rate of 2%, while everyone else pays 12%.

    In that sense, National Insurance is set up more or less the way you want: the people who take out (i.e. earning less than £30k) are, broadly speaking, the people who put in.

    If only our "average education" the taxpayer generously gave us had encompassed the subjects of economics and the public finances, eh? Then maybe we wouldn't have so many of us learning about it from Conservative Party election slogans and headlines written in the tabloid press.
    It all goes into the same budget which is why they were talking about merging the taxes


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    You make it sound so bloody simple. It really isn't. I can't stand for long periods of time. I also can't sit for long periods of time. Just what do you suggest I do then? Most jobs require you to interact with people in some way and most work from home jobs either don't exist or are scams.
    Guess my employment is just imaginary then and someone else is putting that 4k in my bank account each month. Also are you suggesting that jobs either glue you to a desk or make you run track all day? You could also be self employed... People work with debilitating injuries work all the time and do fine, unless you are frickin' blind (know someone blind in one eye working) there is rarely an excuse but again this country is over PC.

    I also noticed you posted in the running thread pretty good for someone who has physical impairment, you do realize people with no legs can get jobs right? You must have it so hard. Fortunately for you this country does indeed have bigger issues to worry about than drain on benefits but unfortunately for you benefit claimants are going to end up as the scapegoats for the bigger issues.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.