Budget hits the "poorest" hardest!!

[shaunbhoy]

I don't live in a tax haven. I live in a country that has reasonably low income tax, and of the tax that I DO contribute, virtually none of it is used to keep a sizeable proportion of the "Unemployed" in ciggies, and trips to their local bookies/Wetherspoons. Thus I feel perfectly justified in haranguing those not living in a country that has "reasonably low income tax", whenever they show signs of being less than tolerant to this sizeable proportion who, as we all know, are just hapless victims of circumstance, and should be treated with kid gloves

FTFY

[shaunbhoy]

wibble snivel tosh

d000hg,
word to the wise. You really ought to try and refrain from aimlessly wandering across threads desperately seeking acceptance, like a fart looking for some stray underpants.
You seem to have developed the unhappy knack of trying to ingratiate yourself to some of the serial simpletons too. Not a winning combo. Let's be honest, you are more than capable of keeping your CUK Credibility index flatlining under your own steam, without attaching yourself limpet-like to the coattails of the snaws/sasgurus of this world. Although it is easy to see just why their one-dimensional, simplistic way of analysing sometimes complex issues might appeal to you.
Try and think for yourself sometimes. Surely they have covered THAT in your self-help group?

[snaw]

d000hg,
word to the wise. You really ought to try and refrain from aimlessly wandering across threads desperately seeking acceptance, like a fart looking for some stray underpants.
You seem to have developed the unhappy knack of trying to ingratiate yourself to some of the serial simpletons too. Not a winning combo. Let's be honest, you are more than capable of keeping your CUK Credibility index flatlining under your own steam, without attaching yourself limpet-like to the coattails of the snaws/sasgurus of this world. Although it is easy to see just why their one-dimensional, simplistic way of analysing sometimes complex issues might appeal to you.
Try and think for yourself sometimes. Surely they have covered THAT in your self-help group?

ROFLMFAO

their one-dimensional, simplistic way of analysing sometimes complex issues

Sweet jaysus, you've got some serious mental health issues SB, I've seen 1 year olds with more self awareness (Not to mention debating skills).

Honestly, you're a sub 100 IQ, with sub 50 articulation, and zero comprehension.

[d000hg]

...

Aww, you must have been trying really hard to get me to respond, quoting/referring my same post 3 times. You really have a bee in your bonnet over that graph.

[xoggoth]

SB wins this abuse contest I reckon. "A fart looking for some stray underpants" is a knockout.

[shaunbhoy]

I've seen 1 year olds with more self awareness (Not to mention debating skills).

Clearly. The fact that you limber up for this place by testing your mettle against 1-year olds explains a lot.

Really do lead with your chin dontcha?

[d000hg]

SB wins this abuse contest I reckon. "A fart looking for some stray underpants" is a knockout.

He was the only one taking part in the abuse contest. It is a good insult, thanks for pointing it out - I couldn't be arsed (no pun) reading his long spiel of childishness. Just a shame insults is the only thing he's good at.

[Sysman]

There was a good article in The Guardian a while back about how the rigid mechanics of the welfare system discourage work. Take on a temporary job or take a risk on something you may not be suited for and you have to start the whole claims process over again when the job ends.

You are right about the inflexibility of the system. I remember a barmaid (divorced with toddler) who wanted to work more but was limited to 16 hours of work a week by the welfare system. If I remember correctly, over that she would lose a quid in benefits for every quid she earned, and I think it got even more regressive if she could have worked full time. Smart presentable lass, wanted to work more, but faced a real financial penalty for doing so.

[shaunbhoy]

You are right about the inflexibility of the system. I remember a barmaid (divorced with toddler) who wanted to work more but was limited to 16 hours of work a week by the welfare system. If I remember correctly, over that she would lose a quid in benefits for every quid she earned, and I think it got even more regressive if she could have worked full time. Smart presentable lass, wanted to work more, but faced a real financial penalty for doing so.

Exactamundo. The more cynical amongst us might see this as a means, by the previous Government, of retaining votes. Create an artificial environment in which ever increasing proportions of the populace are dependent upon handouts, and retain power for ever.
At least the new Government are working towards the point of allowing the lower paid to earn up to 10K before paying income tax. If they can manage this then hopefully a lot of the dependency issues will be overcome. A long overdue initiative.

[shaunbhoy]

I couldn't be arsed (no pun) reading his long spiel

Well I suppose all that foogling the big words is a tad taxing. Why not see if you can find a totally erroneous pie chart and use that to make your point (badly) for you again?