Turn on thread page Beta

Why doesn't Labour use money from people on benefits to fund the armed forces? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    Where did I advocate that we should scrap benefits altogether? I was clearly referring to this group of people:

    "I'm referring to those people who have been on benefits for years, even pre-recession and spend the money on crap."
    So, how much tax do you pay each year?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    This does not prove that the £211mil could not be sourced from elsewhere if we replaced the monarchy with an ELECTED head of state.



    If their wealth is independent of their monarchism, then they would pay this amount in taxes regardless of whether we kept them as monarchs or not.



    Glad you agree.
    That’s not the point, you claim the government pays for the monarchy but it does not. I personally think money should not even be thought of when we discus the constitutional future of our country, there are more important things. But if the republicans do insist on bringing up royal finance they will be shot down every time
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    So, how much tax do you pay each year?
    I certainly pay a hefty sum from my part-time job, which I manage whilst studying.

    How much do you pay?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    So, how much tax do you pay each year?
    As a future person with a degree, she will be paying more tax on average!
    FACT
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    I certainly pay a hefty sum from my part-time job, which I manage whilst studying.

    How much do you pay?
    Plenty. And fair enough.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJolly1902)
    people with degree tend to pay higher taxes in the future, so they are not living off tax payers...get your facts right
    Go to the careers forum and see if thats the case...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markwaza)
    Don't be daft, tuition fees are heavily subidised by the government. If not you'd be paying the same as an international student.
    Heh. Add your point to the OP's argument, and we're at the conclusion that anyone who uses a gov't-subsidised service is a scrounger. I like that.

    Them scrounging *******s, with their RBS current accounts...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJolly1902)
    As a future person with a degree, she will be paying more tax on average!
    FACT
    Wonderful. Thank you captain obvious.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    That's rich, coming from a person who is incapable of stringing a credible political argument together.
    Evidence?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Go to the careers forum and see if thats the case...
    All my family with degrees pay more tax, because they earn more.
    While I know single mums who used to go to my school on benefits paying naff all
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    People still remember this you know...

    Now that I don't have nothing else relevant to add I leave.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Some of the comments here illustrate perfectly why scroungers are getting the cash, students are traditionally liberal, therefore any spending of defence and protecting our own soldiers lives is the no.1 sin = lost votes.

    It doesn't help the Armed Forces are traditionally Conservative either.

    Rather the money be spent of the soldiers who are risking their lives than the scroungers who sit on their arses.
    Offline

    10
    Economically it makes most sense to focus on education, healthcare and investment in infrastructure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    That’s not the point, you claim the government pays for the monarchy but it does not. I personally think money should not even be thought of when we discus the constitutional future of our country, there are more important things. But if the republicans do insist on bringing up royal finance they will be shot down every time
    I remain suspicious about the contribution of the monarchy.

    Afterall, if the Royal Family are able to generate as much as £211 million, aswell as enough private income to necessitate around £3 million in taxes, then why do they need that £41.5 million injection from the treasury in the first place?

    Why not pay that money out of their own pocket, and put only £169.5 million back into the treasury?

    And I think that the issue of money SHOULD be considered when we talk about the constitutional future of our country. We must ask ourselves the question 'could an alternative head of state generate this type of income if he was elected, rather than given his position by heredity?'. My guess would be 'yes', based on the fact that there's no reason why being of a particular family would make you a better income-generator as head of state. But there's every reason to believe that you'd be better qualified for the job, overall, if you were elected, or appointed by some system other than heredity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Economically it makes most sense to focus on education, healthcare and investment in infrastructure.
    Without a strong defence, this country can be invaded.
    like it nearly happened in world war 2.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by MrJolly1902)
    Without a strong defence, this country can be invaded.
    like it nearly happened in world war 2.
    Yes, the Afghans are going to invade and subdue Britain unless more money is spent financing an overseas war :top:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    :rofl: @ my recent neg:

    "Benefits help people, wars kill people."

    Help people get pissed, yes.

    At least the die hard socialists are revealing their idealistic, infantile true colours within this thread.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Yes, the Afghans are going to invade and subdue Britain unless more money is spent financing an overseas war :top:
    The all point is about defense.
    War might start with any nation and with a weak defense you can be caught of....It has happened many times in the past.

    Your thinking is so narrow
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJolly1902)
    Without a strong defence, this country can be invaded.
    like it nearly happened in world war 2.
    but you don't really need a bluewater navy for defence...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    :rofl: @ my recent neg:

    "Benefits help people, wars kill people."

    Help people get pissed in a lot of cases, yes.

    At least the die hard socialists are revealing their idealistic, infantile colours within this thread.
    Or are having a laugh as windup merchants, either way.
 
 
 
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.