• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

FFS1

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
    I think it's good for a broad cross-section of society to pay some tax
    Virtually the whole of society pays tax every time they buy most goods or services. I guess you mean income-related tax, in which case I agree, it'd be nice for people to be put in the position where they could comfortably afford an acceptable standard of living as well as feeling that they're "doing their bit" paying income tax. I won't hold my breath on that one, even if Labour get in at the next GE; capitalism and big business have too much of a stranglehold on the country, especially the mainstream media.

    Comment


      #22
      Seems the new wheeze is to stop benefits after 6 months of not finding work effectively. That won't be abused like sanctions will it?

      Comment


        #23
        Now mumblings about cuts to income tax and national insurance. Decision based on the general 'WTF you doing idiots' response to the IHT cut reports? Or being used as a carrot the push IHT cuts through.

        Regardless, continued message seems to be a harsh assault on benefits.

        Deep down I am for the notion that there is an endpoint to benefits, ie, the wilfully lazy should reach a point where there is no more support. I believe people have the right to endgame themselves, and I think that extends to endgame by apathy. I'm not sure I trust Government to be able to get the line right. My Mother just made pension age, but is arguably disabled and for many years would struggle to find suitable work if needed. The family made life decisions that allowed us to manage. If it wasn't for those decisions and it was 10-15 years ago would I trust the Government not to sentence her to abject poverty?

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by JustKeepSwimming View Post
          Now mumblings about cuts to income tax and national insurance. Decision based on the general 'WTF you doing idiots' response to the IHT cut reports? Or being used as a carrot the push IHT cuts through.

          Regardless, continued message seems to be a harsh assault on benefits.

          Deep down I am for the notion that there is an endpoint to benefits, ie, the wilfully lazy should reach a point where there is no more support. I believe people have the right to endgame themselves, and I think that extends to endgame by apathy. I'm not sure I trust Government to be able to get the line right. My Mother just made pension age, but is arguably disabled and for many years would struggle to find suitable work if needed. The family made life decisions that allowed us to manage. If it wasn't for those decisions and it was 10-15 years ago would I trust the Government not to sentence her to abject poverty?
          Benefits are a big part of the drain on the economy including Gordon B'Ruin's cute idea to subsidise large multination's pay. Lift the minimum wage.

          There are perfectly healthy people for whom benefits are a life style choice, some fall into it due to circumstances beyond their control, but its comfortable and it becomes generational. Applying sensible pressure to those makes a lot of sense.

          Keeping those with health issues mobile is wise, the closure of Remploy was a scandal.



          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by Snooky View Post
            Virtually the whole of society pays tax every time they buy most goods or services. I guess you mean income-related tax, in which case I agree, it'd be nice for people to be put in the position where they could comfortably afford an acceptable standard of living as well as feeling that they're "doing their bit" paying income tax. I won't hold my breath on that one, even if Labour get in at the next GE; capitalism and big business have too much of a stranglehold on the country, especially the mainstream media.
            Indeed, which is why I went on to say this:

            Originally posted by jamesbrown View Post
            Having a large cross-section of society pay no (income) tax at all isn't conducive to a good discussion about trade-offs between tax and spend (in which the largest number of people have a stake).
            I have no problem with a progressive increase in the minimum wage for example, which means that goods and services will become more expensive for everyone.

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by vetran View Post

              Benefits are a big part of the drain on the economy including Gordon B'Ruin's cute idea to subsidise large multination's pay. Lift the minimum wage.

              There are perfectly healthy people for whom benefits are a life style choice, some fall into it due to circumstances beyond their control, but its comfortable and it becomes generational. Applying sensible pressure to those makes a lot of sense.

              Keeping those with health issues mobile is wise, the closure of Remploy was a scandal.


              I agree that work should pay enough to not need benefits. I don't think Kunt is really going after in work benefits, although they will probably suffer too. He seems to be gunning for out of work benefits where it is far harder to determine the genuine from the grifters.

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by JustKeepSwimming View Post

                I agree that work should pay enough to not need benefits. I don't think Kunt is really going after in work benefits, although they will probably suffer too. He seems to be gunning for out of work benefits where it is far harder to determine the genuine from the grifters.
                If tax payers are subsidising Big Burger Co etc.so they can declare profits abroad when they don't pay a living wage, that can stop. The big chains won't pull out of UK but it will force them to compete on a level playing field with the local cafe. I want benefits topping up wages to stop. Now is the time to do it while supermarkets etc are screwing the public.

                Not sure if you remember the film the big monty? They used to put long term unemployed on courses to learn how to read/write and apply for jobs not least because it kept them out of trouble and stopped them working illegally regularly. Similarly those on a Zoom call 8am-6pm M-F would prevent them from working elsewhere and allow the people that need help to get it.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by vetran View Post

                  Not sure if you remember the film the big monty? They used to put long term unemployed on courses to learn how to read/write and apply for jobs not least because it kept them out of trouble and stopped them working illegally regularly. Similarly those on a Zoom call 8am-6pm M-F would prevent them from working elsewhere and allow the people that need help to get it.
                  And the winners were the private course providers.

                  Also putting someone on a zoom call between 8am-6pm or even making them attending a course providers site doesn't stop someone working later that evening.
                  "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by vetran View Post

                    I want benefits topping up wages to stop. Now is the time to do it while supermarkets etc are screwing the public.
                    Raising the individual person allowances instead, based on number of children (Child benefit linked) would help as it can't be fiddled and costs no extra to administer.
                    But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition. Pliny the younger

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by Gibbon View Post

                      Raising the individual person allowances instead, based on number of children (Child benefit linked) would help as it can't be fiddled and costs no extra to administer.
                      Don't be silly. Any change to such things will require a whole new department to operate it. Plus diversity support. Plus performance measurement teams. Plus HR and payroll teams. Plus PR and Communications teams...

                      It's what the Civil Service does.
                      Blog? What blog...?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X