Why do you vote as you do?

[DodgyAgent]

The key point is not that everyone should work, but that everyone should contribute to society. People on long-term benefits do not generally contribute to society.

Dont bite Welchy

[dang65]

J K Rowling was on benefits when she wrote the first Harry Potter book, and I bet that's raked in a few quid for the taxman over the years. Let alone all the jobs it's created.

[shaunbhoy]

J K Rowling was on benefits when she wrote the first Harry Potter book, and I bet that's raked in a few quid for the taxman over the years. Let alone all the jobs it's created.

No doubt. And if people like Tarkers get their way, she will be taxed at an exorbitant enough rate in future to make her emigrate. Then the taxman can recoup 50-80% of the fook all she leaves behind.
Quality economics at work..............it is only fair!

[Weltchy]

J K Rowling was on benefits when she wrote the first Harry Potter book, and I bet that's raked in a few quid for the taxman over the years. Let alone all the jobs it's created.

This is a lonely example of the welfare state working as it should be, providing a helping hand to someone in need. Yes, she has made a lot of money from the sale of her books and paid sufficient amounts in tax, in addition to making charitable donations and the like.

Unfortunately, the majority of people on long term benefits do not use this as an example. If they did, maybe the welfare state wouldn't be such a draw on our economy.

[Tarquin Farquhar]

No doubt. And if people like Tarkers get their way, she will be taxed at an exorbitant enough rate in future to make her emigrate. Then the taxman can recoup 50-80% of the fook all she leaves behind.
Quality economics at work..............it is only fair!

That is why I would advocate an exit tax on those leaving the country, so that the State can safeguard its revenue rights.

Someone leaving in order to evade tax should expect to be taxed before being allowed to leave, on the projected earnings on which they ought to be paying tax. If Rowling wrote Harry Potter in the UK, the tax revenue on income from Harry Potter rightfully belongs to the UK.

The EU is planning to implement a framework of exit taxes for this.....

[DodgyAgent]

That is why I would advocate an exit tax on those leaving the country, so that the State can safeguard its revenue rights.

Someone leaving in order to evade tax should expect to be taxed before being allowed to leave, on the projected earnings on which they ought to be paying tax. If Rowling wrote Harry Potter in the UK, the tax revenue on income from Harry Potter rightfully belongs to the UK.

The EU is planning to implement a framework of exit taxes for this.....

How do you propose to fund the building of a "Berlin Wall" around the UK, and for that matter around all the EU borders. The state should have no revenue rights unless it proves that it can spend its revenue for the benefit of the people as opposed for the benefit of those in power.

The new phrase for Britain "Illegal Emmigrants"

[dang65]

This is a lonely example of the welfare state working as it should be, providing a helping hand to someone in need. Yes, she has made a lot of money from the sale of her books and paid sufficient amounts in tax, in addition to making charitable donations and the like.

Unfortunately, the majority of people on long term benefits do not use this as an example. If they did, maybe the welfare state wouldn't be such a draw on our economy.

Do you have any statistics to back that up? I know plenty of people who studied or retrained while they were unemployed and claiming benefits, allowing them to get work and contribute far more than they ever took out. There are many, many other examples of writers, musicians, artists, inventors and voluntary workers who have survived on benefits and then made a lot of money from what they learned or created while claiming.

Of course there are spongers, just as there are corrupt politicians, coppers, contractors, bankers etc etc. If they are doing something illegal then report them. There is a hotline number you can call. If they are not doing anything illegal, but you feel they are being given too much for nothing then try living on that "too much" for a few weeks and see how you get on.

In the end, yes, there will be cases where people, usually absurdly large families, appear to rake in an absolute fortune for doing nothing. For a start, those cases are not the norm, which is why they get concentrated media coverage when they do happen, and secondly, I'm not sure that anyone beyond some kind of massive industrialist dynasty could afford to raise families that big without help. I've got four kids myself and it's touch and go financially every month even on a massive contractor's income (plus Child Benefit).

Obviously, the response will be, "well, they shouldn't be allowed to have such big families," but that's not the sort of restriction we allow in our society, at the moment.

[Weltchy]

Do you have any statistics to back that up? I know plenty of people who studied or retrained while they were unemployed and claiming benefits, allowing them to get work and contribute far more than they ever took out. There are many, many other examples of writers, musicians, artists, inventors and voluntary workers who have survived on benefits and then made a lot of money from what they learned or created while claiming.

Of course there are spongers, just as there are corrupt politicians, coppers, contractors, bankers etc etc. If they are doing something illegal then report them. There is a hotline number you can call. If they are not doing anything illegal, but you feel they are being given too much for nothing then try living on that "too much" for a few weeks and see how you get on.

In the end, yes, there will be cases where people, usually absurdly large families, appear to rake in an absolute fortune for doing nothing. For a start, those cases are not the norm, which is why they get concentrated media coverage when they do happen, and secondly, I'm not sure that anyone beyond some kind of massive industrialist dynasty could afford to raise families that big without help. I've got four kids myself and it's touch and go financially every month even on a massive contractor's income (plus Child Benefit).

Obviously, the response will be, "well, they shouldn't be allowed to have such big families," but that's not the sort of restriction we allow in our society, at the moment.

I live in the Portsmouth area, and I know of and have observed quite a few people who fit the example I'm pointing toward, however that is my own perception. With regard to trying to live on that much for a few weeks, I had to do that for 3 months when I left college and couldn't get a job. Worst three months of my life which left a bitter taste in my mouth and made me feel worthless having to go to the job-centre and sign-on, etc. I saw and met alot of people who work the system in those three months. However, with the support of my family and friends, I pushed hard, got as many interviews as I could and got myself onto the bottom rung of the ladder. Since then, I've managed to climb up and now find myself in a comfortable position, however I have nothing but scorn for anyone who is too lazy to do what I did.

Back to your comment amount statistics. It would be interesting to see what any statistics reveal, to ensure that neither of our views are skewed by our own perception and bias. If I was not working, perhaps I'd spend an hour or two looking for them.

[dang65]

Back to your comment about statistics. It would be interesting to see what any statistics reveal, to ensure that neither of our views are skewed by our own perception and bias. If I was not working, perhaps I'd spend an hour or two looking for them.

Well, I think the point is that there are no statistics. The papers will say, "2 million dole scroungers get free houses" or whatever, but these are just random and meaningless numbers. Like you, I spent a short time on the dole (in the early 80s), but I had no responsibilities then and was able to take a rubbish low-paid job and still be much better off financially. If I had a family and a house and kids at local schools and then ended up on the dole and only know how to, say, machine parts for generators in the local factory which had just shut down, then I imagine things would be a little more complicated.

[Weltchy]

Well, I think the point is that there are no statistics. The papers will say, "2 million dole scroungers get free houses" or whatever, but these are just random and meaningless numbers. Like you, I spent a short time on the dole (in the early 80s), but I had no responsibilities then and was able to take a rubbish low-paid job and still be much better off financially. If I had a family and a house and kids at local schools and then ended up on the dole and only know how to, say, machine parts for generators in the local factory which had just shut down, then I imagine things would be a little more complicated.

If you were a single parent with children and on the dole, then I don't disagree that you would struggle to get out of your situation with the way that the system currently works. You have to admit though, this is just plain wrong. Society and the government have allowed the situation to occur and it needs to be fixed.

Surely the purpose of the welfare state is to give people like this the oppotunity to improve and enrich their lives and still provide the ability to contribute to society and not have to rely on state hand-outs. If you've been on the dole for a few month's, you must understand how easy it would be to give in and say "Bugger it, i'll let someone else do the work and i'll live off them".

The statistics, if they existed, might say the situation is as bad as I think it is, or maybe not, however the system itself is wrong. Do we leave it as it is, or should we fix it?

Changing the subject slightly, but still on the question of how we decide to vote, my old man used to have a saying.

"Never put off until tomorrow, something that can be done today"

If we link this into the policy of holding off fixing the economy until next year, then maybe that's a mistake. My thinking behind this is you cannot know with certainty what will happen in the future. If we can do something to fix the economy now, we should!