which is the most civilsed nation on earth?

[smellysocks12]

We have an estimated FOUR million of those "couple of lamers" in the UK. That's more than 10% of the workforce. This number is rising as work becomes more and more economically unviable and sponging becomes more and more profitable.

Did you catch the story earlier this week about the single mother who lives with her three daughters? They each had a baby at 12, 14 and 16. Rather than prosecuting them for having sex illegally (not the 16 year old, obviously), they get £36,000 a year in handouts and a free place to live. Deducting from our salaries what my girlfriend and I each spend on our place to live, they earn, on average, more than either of us.

This family is not atypical.


And again you've missed danoff's point. The point wasn't to stuff poor people and only pay wages to people with degrees (reminder, I earn less than the National Average Wage, and I have TWO degrees). The point is to be as fair as possible to EVERYONE.

Yes, I heard of that situation with those daughters. It's sad, but the problem is not with the social security being too high. Actually it was too low, these kids should have had sexual education, which they probably didn't get from their parents.

The decission to give them money and practically reward them for this type of behavior is debatable. The babies are there now, so all you can do now is try to not make the babies the victims of this bad policy. These type of situations need to be avoided, if they occur they shouldn't be punished but people definitely shouldn't be encouraged to immitate it. If you disagree with the way your tax money is spent, the politicians are to be blamed. The fact that the government spends public tax money isn't wrong, wrong decissions can be made while spending it. The politicians are responsible for this and shouldn't be re-elected next time, if the majority agrees that it was wrong.


Making people work for their education, and not giving it for free (or at least offer it at an affordable price) won't solve these problems. Actually this will make this problem even worse. If 10% of the work force are "lamers" then, yes there is a problem. A way should be found to encourage them to find work. Though the solution you offer in this topic might be a bit short sighted and result in other problems.


By the way, what are the degrees you have that you speak of?

 

[Duke]

Yes maybe a little harsh (edited)... but his opinion is really strange... For me he sounds like a depressed person that is not satisfied with his life... he would always complain about anything...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that danoff enjoys and values his own life as much or more than anyone in this thread.

I know I do, and I agree with about 98% of what he says.

Theory and nothing else... it wouldn't work that way ( as I said above > abuse > revolution > not nice ) ;

Sez you. I disagree.

Many politicians are idealists, they do care for what they spend the money, They studied laws and economy etc, don't think that it is that simple... All in all they know what they are doing : And they would be even better if democracy wouldn't force them to act carefully : Radical cuts often mean losing the next election, politicians have to be popular, that is not always good, but that is how it works

Sez you. Politicians are rarely idealists who care how they spend the money. They spend the money in a way that will get them reelected. That's what they care about. And since the public will always vote themselves bread and circuses, that's what happens. It's extremely easy to vote somebody else's money away from them.

People who want radical capitalism don't consider all consequences ...

Sez you. I disagree.

Concerning schools : Schools should defintifly be controlled and payed by the government, although I can understand danoffs thoughts, American public schools sometimes are really low quality...

Oh, nice dig at America. Thanks a whole bunch. Like UK and Canadian public schools are wonderful, judged by the literacy of your average poster here...

What a crock of crap. I knew I should have stayed out of this thread.

 

[Famine]

By the way, what are the degrees you have that you speak of?

B.Sc. (Hons) in Molecular Biology & Genetics from the University of East Anglia and an M.Sc. in Human Genetics & Disease from Sheffield Hallam University.

 

[Max_DC]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that danoff enjoys and values his own life as much or more than anyone in this thread.

Well, you seem to know him better; I just said what I thought;

I know I do, and I agree with about 98% of what he says.

Well, he says a lot....

Sez you. I disagree.

Well, we'll have to try in order to find out... but nobody will....

Sez you. Politicians are rarely idealists who care how they spend the money. They spend the money in a way that will get them reelected. That's what they care about. And since the public will always vote themselves bread and circuses, that's what happens. It's extremely easy to vote somebody else's money away from them.

Politicians are not payed well and they are not really popular; They could earn a lot more elsewhere... and it is hard work... at least this all is the case in Germany...
Well, again you seem to fear ( like Danoff) that somebody steals your money... My family probably pays more tax ( in % ) than you and we don't complain ... I thought you all love living in the USA...

Sez you. I disagree.

Your opinion vs my opinion... so you may disagree, no problem.. as I said above we would need to test this first

Oh, nice dig at America. Thanks a whole bunch. Like UK and Canadian public schools are wonderful, judged by the literacy of your average poster here...

Well, you have fantastic schools and universities, probably the best ones.... but you really have schools below average...

What a crock of crap. I knew I should have stayed out of this thread.

Why ? Show me the crock of crap ( oh and I mean the crap outside Danoffs posts )

 

[Danoff]

Yes maybe a little harsh (edited)... but his opinion is really strange... For me he sounds like a depressed person that is not satisfied with his life... he would always complain about anything...

I love my life, my life is increadibly easy. I have a great job and a great family and lots of toys.

But what the hell does that have to do with this discussion???

Well, you have fantastic schools and universities, probably the best ones.... but you really have schools below average...

Yea, the public ones.

Danoffs examples are nice, but they are way to simple for this complex subject...

This is your ingenious rebuttle.

And a nation can't live without taxes... and honestly do you want to live in a 100% capitalist nation?

I don't think anyone is arguing that a nation can survive without taxes.

Starting with your last question : Nations need money to work and the money comes from its citizens; The Rich pay more than the poor to get in a bit of social fairness, you know that is one of the points you need for being a civilized country...

The original question was how it can be fair for some citizens to pay more for the same government. You didn't answer it. You simply point to it as social fairness - how is it fair?

 

[Famine]

Politicians are not payed well and they are not really popular; They could earn a lot more elsewhere... and it is hard work... at least this all is the case in Germany...

I said this elsewhere...

In fact, the AVERAGE claimed by MPs in the UK including travel and stationary expenses PER YEAR is a staggering £175,922. I'll remind you that there's 659 MPs, meaning that the basic salary allowance for Westminster has increased by £13.9 MILLION in the last decade, with the average allowance for MPs stands at a truely awesome ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTEEN MILLION POUNDS a year.

Quick, let's organise a charity for them...

My family probably pays more tax ( in % ) than you and we don't complain...

Betcha more of my salary goes to various forms of taxation than your dad's 42%.

And perhaps you SHOULD complain. You just aren't.

 

[PS]

You can't support the troops and not support the war, it's contradicting.

How can you support a solider and what he does if what he does is what you do not support?

Hey Jordan, it's great that you work hard on your website, too bad I think it sucks!

See what I mean?

No. It's good that he's trying to make it good, and I support him if he wants to make it better, and I support him if he's struggling, but I don't have to support a crappy site.

Same with the war. I can support the troops for their bravery, doing their jobs, facing death every day, but I don't have to support the US Government, who is ultimately responsible for their actions.

It's not contradictory at all, and I knew you would say that which is why I brought it up.

It's like me working for a company. Because I like what I'm doing or I need the money, and someone supports me then good. But if they don't support the company I work for, then so what? It's not contradictory, it's different reasons for supporting different things. Invading a country, bombing the hell out innocent victims and childrens hospitals is different from answering the call of duty, being shipped overseas and defending a base. The troops are doing their jobs and serving their country, but beyond their control their country may be bombing or invading something else, which is what some people don't support. See it?

Or how M5Power still doesn't like Nissans/Inifiniti's and said himself that he would buy one "when they stop sucking". Yet he's a trend researcher for Nissan. That doesn't make him a hypocrite, just different views/opinions/reasons for doing something.

 

[ZAGGIN]

I earn less than national average wage. I agree with danoff.

the reason you earn less than the national average wage, is because there are so many people earning top wages. i know you live in the uk, well, i live in north wales. the current national average wage is nearly £500 a week! thats ridiculous. where i live your considered to be doing well if you earn £250 a week - thats half the national average.

my standard of living is lower than a sponger's. So what incentive do I - or people following me - have to study hard, get degrees and get a job when they could just knock up their underage girlfriend and get everything free?

who do you count as sponger? people receiving some form of benefit? up until 7 months ago, i had a £22,000 a year job (an excellent wage for north wales), but i had to give it up to look after my daughter. i still work, but part time, and i receive benefits from the government that make up the short fall in my wages. i pay taxes like you, and i have to pay child support too. would you class me as a scrounger? afterall, i am spending your hard earned cash.

*edit*

As a result, the UK is becoming a hand-to-mouth society. You're better off not working than you are working. Pregnant at 15? No problem - the Government will stick you in a house (free), not charge you rent, give you living allowances (about £300 a week per kid), pay your National Insurance and, when you're old enough, give you your state pension. You'll also get totally free healthcare (the rest of us pay for out prescriptions - so free Health Service my arse).

what world are you living in? the govenrment does not give '£300 a week in allowances per kid'. i have two children, one that lives with me, and another that doesnt. in allowances, id say both of them recieve no more than £250 a week COMBINED. judging from your posts, you view of ordinary people seems to be far removed from the actual realities of life in the uk. the reason you grumble so much about taxes etc, is because your in a position to support yourself financially. imagine if you couldnt, i bet you wouldnt be complaining then would you? everyone pays taxes, and it is right that the better off should pay more. the ammount of tax you pay may be more than me, but as a proportion to how much we both earn, there isnt much difference.

my sister, was recently studying for a degree, but she had to give it up because she couldnt afford to bring up a child, and study. the fact that you have two degrees shows that you have had somewhat of a privilaged life thus far. not everyone gets the same opportunities you've enjoyed, you should be grateful that you've had the chance. many, many other will never get the chances or opportunities you have had.

by the time the 'pregnant 15 year olds' you talk about reach pensionable age, there will not be no state pension. the government has catagorically stated that future generations will have to provide their own pension, because the state wont be able to.
as for paying for prescription charges, you should think about moving to wales. they are cheaper here than in england, and eventually (in the next couple of years) they will be totally free.

*edit*

Now, call ME Mickey Mouse, but that's financially unsustainable - "income" from taxes is less than expenditure, so you can either raise taxes - resulting in MORE people leaving and MORE people not bothering to work as it's financially unsound - or lower them, resulting in a massive net deficit since you're already committed to paying the spongers everything.

unemployment is at the lowest in the uk it has ever been, certainly lower than when the conservatives where in power and they favoured the better off. MORE people are working now than at any time since world war II. infact, the uk, is on the verge of almost full employment for all. despite what you suggest, people are not giving up work and sitting back and scrounging, though i will admit there is a hardcore group of people that are resistant to work. thanks to the welfare state we have on the uk, more and more people are working, not less and less as your posts would suggest.

*edit*

We have an estimated FOUR million of those "couple of lamers" in the UK. That's more than 10% of the workforce. This number is rising as work becomes more and more economically unviable and sponging becomes more and more profitable.

unemploment in the uk is 1.4 million according to national statistics, so i can only assume that your statement is attacking those on some form of sickness benefit. i will admit that sickness benefit is sometimes abused, but there are many genuine cases out there that do deserve it. be thankful you have your own mind, can walk, and are not dependant on anyone or anything. not everyone has been graced with the good fortune you have.

Did you catch the story earlier this week about the single mother who lives with her three daughters? They each had a baby at 12, 14 and 16. Rather than prosecuting them for having sex illegally (not the 16 year old, obviously), they get £36,000 a year in handouts and a free place to live. Deducting from our salaries what my girlfriend and I each spend on our place to live, they earn, on average, more than either of us.

This family is not atypical.

so your saying that this is not commonplace?

i know the story that you are talking about, and i will admit that there are people that do abuse the system, but not everyone does. £36,000 between 4 is only £9,000 each, and they have to bring up three children as well. the only reason this is even in the news is because they all live in the same house. if the girls in question lived away from home, it would of never made the news. the way you talk, you would swear that everyone who doesnt work is trying to rip off the state, thats simply not true.

(reminder, I earn less than the National Average Wage, and I have TWO degrees)

if you earn less than the minimum wage with two degrees, thats your problem, not anyone elses. you have the means, to earn a hell of a lot more. i dont have a recognisable qualification to my name, and i managed to get a £22,000 job (£4,000 below the national average), so im sure you could do a lot better than that.

 

[smellysocks12]

A perfect example of how free things aren't going to make someone work less hard is the company Philips. Before the company was started Eindhoven was a very small town, with not much economic activity. In order to have people working well and supporting the company they built up an entire neighborhood with housing for the employees and families. They started up a sports club for the employees, so they could get exercise and have entertainment. Now almost a century later Philips is a world wide flourishing multinational and it's sports club (PSV (Philips Sport Vereniging)) became the champion of soccer in my country. The company had loyal employees with heart for the company, which allowed the company to get where it is now. It's practically the same for a country, if the work force isn't getting anything from the nation they don't care for their country. What you get is a cold hearted society with many people working for themselves instead of working together. I don't know in what world you live, but in this modern day society the only way to get things done most efficiently is by doing it together. That's how western countries became large and wealthy, turning society in a dog eat dog survival of the fittest environment will lead to a mess.

 

[Danoff]

I don't know in what world you live, but in this modern day society the only way to get things done most efficiently is by doing it together. That's how western countries became large and wealthy, turning society in a dog eat dog survival of the fittest environment will lead to a mess.

Who said anything about not working together? I'm talking about why tax systems that tax different citizens differently are uncivilized and immoral. You're talking about... what are you talking about?

 

[smellysocks12]

Who said anything about not working together? I'm talking about why tax systems that tax different citizens differently are uncivilized and immoral. You're talking about... what are you talking about?

If you want people to care about the country, the country and the people have to work together. There should be some type of catching net for the unfortunate ones. Getting unemployed or becoming unable to work aren't always one's own mistake. I didn't mean working together as people working together, but more like government and people below. Though, you're right, I kinda lost track of what I was trying to explain.

 

[Danoff]

There should be some type of catching net for the unfortunate ones. Getting unemployed or becoming unable to work aren't always one's own mistake.

Every citizen should feel free to take it upon his or herself to create that safety net. I understand that you feel for people who are out of work through no fault of their own - you'd like for them to have a safety net... I would too. That's exactly the reason that people donate billions of dollars to charity. Charities that they choose, to support causes they feel strongly about. Charities that are accountable to their donators, and whose money is not passed through layer upon layer of government, each time with a slice taken from it.

Where I draw the line is when someone takes a nice sentiment like the one I've quoted above and decides that they have a right to force it upon everyone else - that they can force others to donate to their own causes. Charity is a beautiful thing, a testiment to the compassion of man... but not at the point of a gun.

 

[ZAGGIN]

Charity is a beautiful thing, a testiment to the compassion of man...

so i take it that you give generously to charity then? afterall, as you stated, 'charity is a beautiful thing'.

 

[smellysocks12]

I get your point here and I'm sure there are many noble people who will be willing to donate to charity, which they feel like to support. This type of charity isn't a very "constant" type of income though, and how are you creating insecure social security? Though you like to be free to donate to causes you support, many people simply wouldn't even think about it. If they would they might consider donating, but they don't.


In the USA people already more or less have to create that catching net if I'm correct, they have to pay for their own retirement fund. Many people aren't very responsible though, most of the time the people who need it the most aren't, so that's why I'm for a government being there to arrange it for them.


Of course I don't feel sorry for someone falling on his flat broke ass if he's really too lazy to find work, but for the others there should be a catching net even if they never thought of creating one for themselves.

 

[Famine]

the reason you earn less than the national average wage, is because there are so many people earning top wages.

Nonsense.

who do you count as sponger? people receiving some form of benefit? up until 7 months ago, i had a £22,000 a year job (an excellent wage for north wales), but i had to give it up to look after my daughter. i still work, but part time, and i receive benefits from the government that make up the short fall in my wages. i pay taxes like you, and i have to pay child support too. would you class me as a scrounger? afterall, i am spending your hard earned cash.

Answered your own question a little there.

what world are you living in? the govenrment does not give '£300 a week in allowances per kid'. i have two children, one that lives with me, and another that doesnt. in allowances, id say both of them recieve no more than £250 a week COMBINED.

That family? Remember? £36,000 in benefits and a free place to live, which amounts to £300 a week per kid. All handed out from "the Government".

judging from your posts, you view of ordinary people seems to be far removed from the actual realities of life in the uk.

I AM ordinary people.

the reason you grumble so much about taxes etc, is because your in a position to support yourself financially. imagine if you couldnt, i bet you wouldnt be complaining then would you? everyone pays taxes, and it is right that the better off should pay more.

Why?

Why should a "rich" person pay more than a "poor" person? They use the same roads - often less - the same police force - often less - the same fire brigade - often less - the same health service - often less - and the same schools system - often less. We already get them to pay more based on where they live.

If you worked your ASS off to get to £36,000 a year, they'd start taking 40% in the pound. Is it fair that, for every amount over an arbitrary figure, for every hour you work, 24 minutes of it is funnelled off before you see it? And let's not even GET into 11% national insurance on all taxable pay (i.e. 11% of money you'll never even see anyway, since it's already been taken in tax).

At what point does it make sense that "You're rich. You must pay for my lifestyle."? At what level does it become right? You're okay with 40%, it seems. Would you be fine with 50%? 60%? 80%? 100%? After all, they're rich. They've worked hard, or been prurient with their money, so it's only right we should punish them for it - they're probably smug and live on a 150ft yacht, wondering what Ferrari to buy next, right?

the ammount of tax you pay may be more than me, but as a proportion to how much we both earn, there isnt much difference.

Calculate it.

Don't forget to add your local Council Tax and National Insurance contributions. You'd be astonished.

my sister, was recently studying for a degree, but she had to give it up because she couldnt afford to bring up a child, and study. the fact that you have two degrees shows that you have had somewhat of a privilaged life thus far. not everyone gets the same opportunities you've enjoyed, you should be grateful that you've had the chance. many, many other will never get the chances or opportunities you have had.

Did she not do the maths? Did she not realise it would be tough?

When I did my first degree it was entirely paid for by "the Government" (with my living costs paid for by student loans). My second degree had no living costs as I lived at home with one of my parents, while the tuition fees were funded by the death of the other one.

I'm SO grateful of THAT opportunity.

by the time the 'pregnant 15 year olds' you talk about reach pensionable age, there will not be no state pension. the government has catagorically stated that future generations will have to provide their own pension, because the state wont be able to.
as for paying for prescription charges, you should think about moving to wales. they are cheaper here than in england, and eventually (in the next couple of years) they will be totally free.

Just a reminder - is this the same Government that, in its first election manifesto pledged to do 5 things and managed not a single one of them? And the same one that gave the excuse that "it was a 5 year plan and we only had four in office", despite the fact THEY called the next election and have had another 4 full years (and one election) since then?

Just checking.

Don't predict the future based on what politicians say.

unemployment is at the lowest in the uk it has ever been, certainly lower than when the conservatives where in power and they favoured the better off. MORE people are working now than at any time since world war II. infact, the uk, is on the verge of almost full employment for all. despite what you suggest, people are not giving up work and sitting back and scrounging, though i will admit there is a hardcore group of people that are resistant to work. thanks to the welfare state we have on the uk, more and more people are working, not less and less as your posts would suggest.

unemploment in the uk is 1.4 million according to national statistics, so i can only assume that your statement is attacking those on some form of sickness benefit. i will admit that sickness benefit is sometimes abused, but there are many genuine cases out there that do deserve it. be thankful you have your own mind, can walk, and are not dependant on anyone or anything. not everyone has been graced with the good fortune you have.

Oh damn, you quoted "national statistics". Well that's my argument shot!

I was unemployed for a while. You know what I found out?

• More than £5k in savings? Can't claim unemployment benefit. Don't appear in the statistics.
• Live with someone working full time? Can't claim unemployment benefit. Don't appear in the statistics.
• Claim unemployment benefit? Well, you can only do it for 12 weeks and then we'll shove you into a "training scheme" to get an "NVQ" (basically a GCSE in a practical application, like carpentry) and at that point... you don't appear in the statistics.

And lastly we have a cracking one... "NEETs". People Not in Education, Employment or Training. There are 1.1 million of them in the UK - doubling unemployment at a stroke. Add on those that Governmental policies mean don't appear in the statistics and you'll find that roughly 4.3 million people - from a workforce of 35 million - are not currently in work. Compare that to the numbers of people who claim Disability Living Allowance...

So don't "assume" I'm "attacking" anyone because YOUR numbers say unemployment is the lowest ever. It isn't - not by a LONG way.

so your saying that this is not commonplace?

"Not atypical" = Commonplace. I'm saying it IS commonplace.

i know the story that you are talking about, and i will admit that there are people that do abuse the system, but not everyone does. £36,000 between 4 is only £9,000 each, and they have to bring up three children as well. the only reason this is even in the news is because they all live in the same house. if the girls in question lived away from home, it would of never made the news. the way you talk, you would swear that everyone who doesnt work is trying to rip off the state, thats simply not true.

You are right. £36,000 between 4 people is £9,000 each. That's £9,000 each tax free with no utilities bills, no council tax and, above all, no rent or mortgage. That's £750 a month, each, of commitment-free cash in hand. At 14/15/18, as the girls are now, I'd take that. Hell, I'd take that now.

if you earn less than the minimum wage with two degrees, thats your problem, not anyone elses. you have the means, to earn a hell of a lot more. i dont have a recognisable qualification to my name, and i managed to get a £22,000 job (£4,000 below the national average), so im sure you could do a lot better than that. [/color]

I do the job I WANT to do. I'm not complaining about it - I'm pointing to the fact I'm not exactly what you might call a high-earner. Apparently only the rich or dissatisfied agree with danoff. I'm neither.

Besides, what incentive do I have to earn more? I can manage my money (which makes me the Devil) and exist happily. If I earned more then there'd be Ninja Death Squads, led by people like you, banging on my door to steal more of my money each month.


The UK's economy is unsustainable. Top earners are taxed to oblivion and move - imagine how much tax David Coulthard and Jenson Button would pay. Shock, they live in Monaco. Non-earners are on the increase (but, thanks to Governmental fudging, you think they're on the decrease). If taxes stay the same, the same trends will continue. If taxes go up, to manage the shortfall (by the way, the Treasury has a £6.2 billion surplus) MORE top earners will leave, creating even more of a shortfall. If taxes go down, the commitment to paying spongers remains the same but tax income is reduced, creating even more of a shortfall. We're heading for a big-ass problem, because of the creation of a PC, touchy-feely, "everyone's the same", proto-Communist Wel"fare" State which doesn't work and rewards the ignorant and lazy.

 

[ZAGGIN]

famine, your want to be careful what you say, i dont take kindly to insults. im no more a scrounger than you are. like you i have had to rely on handouts from the government.

When I did my first degree it was entirely paid for by "the Government"

I was unemployed for a while.

your happy to attack people who claim benefits, but will gladly also claim those same benefits when you need to, that stinks of double standards. apart from destroying your own argument, you've proved yourself to be hypocrite.
heres the definition in case you need further clarification:

'hypocrite - n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold'

Nonsense.

ok, then if it is nonsense, why is the national average wage so high? by its own definition 'average' answers the question itself.
take 10 people all working and earning money. 9 of them earn £10,000 each and one of them earns £100,000. now work out the average of what those 10 people earn and you get £19,000.
according to that calculation each one of them earns £19,000. 9 people in that group of ten will complain that they earn nowhere near the average, whilst one knows he earns 5 times that.

like i said the reason the national average wage is so high, is because there are so many people earning top wages. if ive missunderstood what average means, please feel free to correct me.

when i worked full time i was paying nearly £120 a week in tax, national insurance, and council tax (as well as other associated taxes) - almost a third of my wages was taken off me by the government, and whilst i grumbled, i knew that if ever i needed help, it would be there. its all swings and roundabouts mate. sometimes your ahead, sometimes your behind. thats life in the uk, if you dont like it move to monaco with the rest of the tax exiles.

That family? Remember? £36,000 in benefits and a free place to live, which amounts to £300 a week per kid. All handed out from "the Government".

could you explain the math behind this statement. where do you get the figure of £300 a week per kid? for that family, it probably does work out to £300, but to use that as an example (a poor example at best), and apply it to every situation makes no sense. £300 per child is not the norm and you know it. if i receive £300 a week for my daughter, why do i bother to go out and work? infact, i receive less than a third of that.
if you need clarification of how much i receive from the government, pm me. i am more than willing to prove to you that i do not recieve anywhere near the £300 that you seem happy to quote.

Calculate it. Don't forget to add your local Council Tax and National Insurance contributions. You'd be astonished.

to do this calculation, i would need to know how much you earn. how much, (given that you have TWO degrees) do you earn?

When I did my first degree it was entirely paid for by "the Government" (with my living costs paid for by student loans). My second degree had no living costs as I lived at home with one of my parents, while the tuition fees were
funded by the death of the other one. I'm SO grateful of THAT opportunity.

like i said you've had a privilaged life thus far. i grew up in care. i never had parents like yours, that had the forethought to provide for my future. i WISH i had had the opportunity you seem to think was so worthless.

Don't predict the future based on what politicians say.

old people are living longer in the uk now than when state pensions were first introduced. back then, the government expected the average pensioner to live no more than 10 years. nowadays, pensioners can live well in excess of 20 years past retirement age. its easy to see the problem. as our population gets older, the burden on the state will get greater. eventually the state will not be able to support the ever increasing number of pensioners. why do you think that there is a government
drive aimed at getting everyone to take out some form of private pension?

Just a reminder - is this the same Government that, in its first election manifesto pledged to do 5 things and managed not a single one of them? And the same one that gave the excuse that "it was a 5 year plan and we only had four in
office", despite the fact THEY called the next election and have had another 4 full years (and one election) since then?

and your point is? (see the statement below)

Don't predict the future based on what politicians say.

famine, your rambling. thats the second time you've destroyed your own argument.

Besides, what incentive do I have to earn more? I can manage my money (which makes me the Devil) and exist happily. If I earned more then there'd be Ninja Death Squads, led by people like you, banging on my door to steal more of my money each month.

famine, you want to stop handing out insults. why do you think that you are better than me? because you have TWO degrees? you dont know what your talking about when it comes to benefits and how much people actually receive. if unemployment benefit is so generous (as your posts suggest), then why did you bother to get a job at all?
i used to respect and value your opinion, but you've proven yourself to be selfish, disrespectful, and ill-informed. just because you have TWO degrees, doesnt make you better than anyone else. you might be able to woo people here with your vast knowledge of all things trivial, but when it comes to the real world, your living in laa-laa land. WAKE UP!

 

[Famine]

famine, your want to be careful what you say, i dont take kindly to insults. im no more a scrounger than you are. like you i have had to rely on handouts from the government.

I've NEVER had to rely on handouts from the Government. And I haven't insulted anyone yet. It's against the Terms of Service in any case - although I note it's not stopping you.

your happy to attack people who claim benefits, but will gladly also claim those same benefits when you need to, that stinks of double standards. apart from destroying your own argument, you've proved yourself to be hypocrite.
heres the definition in case you need further clarification:

'hypocrite - n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold'

Actually, I didn't claim them. I said I was unemployed. I DIDN'T say I claimed unemployment benefits. You assumed I did, but I didn't. So how is that hypocritical again?

ok, then if it is nonsense, why is the national average wage so high? by its own definition 'average' answers the question itself.
take 10 people all working and earning money. 9 of them earn £10,000 each and one of them earns £100,000. now work out the average of what those 10 people earn and you get £19,000.
according to that calculation each one of them earns £19,000. 9 people in that group of ten will complain that they earn nowhere near the average, whilst one knows he earns 5 times that.

like i said the reason the national average wage is so high, is because there are so many people earning top wages. if ive missunderstood what average means, please feel free to correct me.

Hang on a second. You said "so many" people are earning vast salaries. Now you're down to 10%. Which is it?

when i worked full time i was paying nearly £120 a week in tax, national insurance, and council tax (as well as other associated taxes) - almost a third of my wages was taken off me by the government, and whilst i grumbled, i knew that if ever i needed help, it would be there. its all swings and roundabouts mate. sometimes your ahead, sometimes your behind. thats life in the uk, if you dont like it move to monaco with the rest of the tax exiles.

Making other people pay for your safety net - and making you pay for other people's - may seem nice and circular to you, but it doesn't remove the fact that it's morally wrong. Why didn't you have income insurance? You can opt-in to that. You can't opt-out of taxes. And, as danoff pointed out, how much waste is there as your money passes through each level of government?

And, as I've explained, that "if you don't like it sod off" principle will result in the collapse of the UK economy.

But that's alright - rich people suck and don't work hard. We don't need them. Right?

When they're all gone, who will we tax to death then?

to do this calculation, i would need to know how much you earn. how much, (given that you have TWO degrees) do you earn?

No. You need to know how much YOU earn. Calculate how much of your salary is filtered off by 10/22 tax bands, by basic rate NI (maybe higher rate too - I forget the threshold level). Take off your council tax too. Then don't forget that 17.5% of everything you buy is tax. Got a bank account? Interest is taxed. Got a savings account? Interest is taxed (unless it's an ISA). While you're at it, add up the total cost of your estate - if it comes to more than £140,000, don't forget to take Capital Gains Tax off that (which, when you die, the Government will do).

I already know how much tax I pay as a percentage of my salary.

like i said you've had a privilaged life thus far. i grew up in care. i never had parents like yours, that had the forethought to provide for my future. i WISH i had had the opportunity you seem to think was so worthless.

Relevance?

old people are living longer in the uk now than when state pensions were first introduced. back then, the government expected the average pensioner to live no more than 10 years. nowadays, pensioners can live well in excess of 20 years past retirement age. its easy to see the problem. as our population gets older, the burden on the state will get greater. eventually the state will not be able to support the ever increasing number of pensioners. why do you think that there is a government
drive aimed at getting everyone to take out some form of private pension?

and your point is? (see the statement below)

famine, your rambling. thats the second time you've destroyed your own argument.

I'm sorry, what? I've destroyed my own argument by telling you not to base your argument on Governmental "promises" when they have shown themselves to be consistant liars?

Let me ask you - what happens the day they phase out state pension? What will they do? Cancel it all at once? Continue paying to those who were 65 or over the previous day but no-one else? What do you think will happen then? The 25% of our country who are currently eligible for it will have a Benny. Blair will fold, as he always does. With him it's what is popular, not what is right.

famine, you want to stop handing out insults. why do you think that you are better than me? because you have TWO degrees? you dont know what your talking about when it comes to benefits and how much people actually receive. if unemployment benefit is so generous (as your posts suggest), then why did you bother to get a job at all?
i used to respect and value your opinion, but you've proven yourself to be selfish, disrespectful, and ill-informed. just because you have TWO degrees, doesnt make you better than anyone else. you might be able to woo people here with your vast knowledge of all things trivial, but when it comes to the real world, your living in laa-laa land. WAKE UP!

Are you jealous of me or something? Why do you keep mentioning that I've got two degrees? I mentioned it, in passing, to smellysocks12 as he said that we may reach a point where the only good wages go to degree holders - and I pointed out that I have two of them and earn below National Average Wage.

I got a job because the thought of being dependant on other people for handouts sickens me. I'd rather starve than be party to theft.

Perhaps you should stick to the facts at hand, rather than getting all swollen with "My life is/was worse than yours" and ad hominems.

Fact 1: 4.3 million of our workforce do not work. Only 1.4 million of these appear on governmental statistics, since the government only count those claiming "Jobseeker's Allowance", which is only available for 12 weeks at a time. Yet I'm the ill-informed one?

Fact 2: "Pay high taxes or leave" does not work as a policy - and I'm supposedly the disrespectful one. High earners WILL leave - and who will you tax then?

Fact 3: Just because you think it's right that someone else who earns more than you should pay towards your lifestyle doesn't mean it actually IS right.

Fact 4: If you think I'm even SLIGHTLY bothered that you "used to" think anything of me and don't now, you're sorely mistaken. Actually, I have no idea why you mentioned it. It's not exactly on-topic, is it? How likely am I to change my mind based on this reasoned and structured argument? It's a poor debater that takes things to heart and can't keep things in context. Check the arguments Swift and I have. What goes on in the Opinions forum stays in the Opinions forum.

Out of interest, how is it "selfish" of me to want richer people than me (note - that's people who AREN'T me) to stop paying so much for other people's short-sightedness? How is it "selfish" of me to want a tax system which is fairer to all (that's ALL, not ME)?

Oh, and in all of your post, you failed to answer the questions I posed:

At what point does it make sense that "You're rich. You must pay for my lifestyle."? At what level does it become right? You're okay with 40%, it seems. Would you be fine with 50%? 60%? 80%? 100%? After all, they're rich. They've worked hard, or been prurient with their money, so it's only right we should punish them for it - they're probably smug and live on a 150ft yacht, wondering what Ferrari to buy next, right?

Onto the subject "Pay for my life or leave the country" isn't very civilised, now is it?

 

[James2097]

In a modern world, I think we're in an enviable situation that we CAN care for those that would otherwise come to harm. This is the value of human life, this is the morality of social responsibility. We are all pretty much arguing over how much we care about our fellow man, and how much this reflects badly on us, and in a roundabout way, how civilised we are.
I have to disagree here with Famine's general stance, I'm more in favour of a compassionate society than one less so. I'm not calling those that want lower taxes selfish, its just a different ideology. This is why there is the right wing, and the left wing.

We aren't going to reach a conclusion here, we aren't going to find common ground. We just have different values. Famine is a smart guy, I respect him, I just don't agree with his idea of the ideal society. He is camping on this thread, so I thought I'd better give my two cents.

Also (to danoff) I NEVER once said he was a republican, or assumed he was religious (I don't care), I said "many" republicans that were also hard right believe in the bible and God. This is accurate, and my point about their ideology contradicting the bible's teachings stands. This is something I've never been able to work out.

 

[Famine]

I'm all in favour of a compassionate society. But doesn't EVERYONE deserve your compassion?

 

[James2097]

Those that are more at risk of dying and coming to harm, are usually less well off.

 

[Famine]

Young male drivers are a higher risk than any other group. They're also typically less well-off as they're at the start of their careers.

Do you want to subsidise their car insurance?

 

[///M-Spec]

DISCLAIMER: I have no comments on the original topic. I feel it is too broad and nebulous a term to pin down and that even the definition supplied by the OP favors certain countries over others.

Re: The Welfare State.

Imagine there are five guys who are friends. Every week they get together to watch the game while enjoying some pizza and beer.

The pizza and beer comes out to perfectly to 50 bucks all together. They all eat and drink roughly similar amounts. How would a normal social group proceed? You've all done this: divide by five, everyone ponies up 10. Fair and civil, right?

Say this goes on for a couple of years when one day, one guy shows up to the party in a Porsche. After the ritualistic oh'ing and ah'ing, the game is about to start and the pizza and beer time comes along.

The other four guys jokingly says Porsche Dude should pay 30 instead of his usual 10, so that they can get a break and just chip in 5. Porsche Dude, having just gotten a promotion and is an otherwise reasonable and generous guy, says "sure, why not?"

Next weekend comes along and the pizza and beer arrives. The four guys look to PorscheDude and EXPECTS him to chip in his now usual 30 bucks. Bowing to social pressure, he continues to do this, but in the back of his mind, the situation begins to sour.

This goes on for a while and then one day, one of the friends shows up and says he's broke and doesn't expect to find a job for some time. He then takes one look at the Tag Heuer strapped to PorscheDude's wrist and says "you're doing well, friend, how about you just spot me this week?"

PorscheDude pays BrokeDude's tab without complaint that week. Then the next. Then the next.

One day PorscheDude says "sorry guys, I'm gonna sit this one out. I'm gonna stay home tonight."

So the guys do their usual thing and when time comes to pay for the pizza and beer they complain about how PorscheDude is a selfish bastard and they should send him the bill for his normal share. BrokeDude is especially upset.

Now imagine a situation where PorscheDude DOES get a bill for his share of the pizza and beer, whether or not he decides to GO to the party. This is your welfare state.

The only difference is PorscheDude was never your friend to begin with. You don't know him, but you expect him to not only pitch in for pizza and beer, but you expect him to pay more than you do. Sound fair and civil to you?

We're heading for a big-ass problem, because of the creation of a PC, touchy-feely, "everyone's the same", proto-Communist Wel"fare" State which doesn't work and rewards the ignorant and lazy.

Forget the encyclodedic knowledge and quipy one-liners. THIS is why I like Famine so much.


M

 

[ZAGGIN]

you implied i was a scrounger because i receive benefits from the government. that IS an insult.

When I did my first degree it was entirely paid for by "the Government" (with my living costs paid for by student loans).

I've NEVER had to rely on handouts from the Government.

your contradiciting yourself there mate. one minute you say that the government paid for you first degree, then you state that you have 'NEVER' had to rely on handouts from that same government. which is it? or doesnt your argument apply when you go to university? like i said earlier your a hypocrite.

Actually, I didn't claim them. I said I was unemployed. I DIDN'T say I claimed unemployment benefits. You assumed I did, but I didn't. So how is that hypocritical again?

ok, i wrongly assumed that you claimed unemployment benefit, i stand corrected. as for being a hypocrite (see above)

whats worse 'scrounging' for self advancement like you have done (with respect to your first degree), or 'scrounging' to survive like i am doing? ive paid my taxes, so am i not entitled to the benefits i now receive?

Hang on a second. You said "so many" people are earning vast salaries. Now you're down to 10%. Which is it?

10% of the uk's workforce is still a substantial figure. you claimed that 4.3 million (or 10% of the workforce) didnt work. well, 4.3 million people (or 10% of the workforce) earning over £100,000 is equally a large figure. unless you can offer up any other credible alternative on how the national average wage is calculated, my argument still stands.

Making other people pay for your safety net - and making you pay for other people's - may seem nice and circular to you, but it doesn't remove the fact that it's morally wrong. Why didn't you have income insurance? You can opt-in to that. You can't opt-out of taxes. And, as danoff pointed out, how much waste is there as your money passes through each level of government?

as i stated earlier, ive paid my taxes, so in fact ive paid for my own safety net. taxes in the uk are 'income insurance'. the only difference is that you pay more but get less. no matter what, you will always have enough to survive. im more than happy for any surplus tax i might of paid to go to someone who wishes to go to university (like yourself), or to someone less fortunate than myself.

Perhaps you should stick to the facts at hand, rather than getting all swollen with "My life is/was worse than yours" and ad hominems.

i dont think my life is/was worse than yours. i was merely stating that i would of welcomed the same opportunities (ie university) that you have taken for granted.

Are you jealous of me or something? Why do you keep mentioning that I've got two degrees? I mentioned it, in passing, to smellysocks12 as he said that we may reach a point where the only good wages go to degree holders - and I pointed out that I have two of them and earn below National Average Wage.

i am definately not jealous of you famine. i keep mentioning it because you keep mentioning it. its not the first time you've done it either. you seem to throw them about to add weight to your arguments, as if by the mere fact that having a degree (or two) makes your argument valid. it doesnt.

"Pay high taxes or leave" does not work as a policy - and I'm supposedly the disrespectful one. High earners WILL leave - and who will you tax then?

"Pay high taxes or leave" IS the policy if you live in the uk. you cant avoid the tax system here, so the only way to get around it is to leave if you can. i was not implying that you should leave, merely stating the options that are available to you. if you think that is disrespectful, i will apologise. im sorry.

Just because you think it's right that someone else who earns more than you should pay towards your lifestyle doesn't mean it actually IS right.

i dont think that its right that someone else who earns more than me should pay for my 'lifestyle'. like i stated earlier ive paid my taxes, so in effect, im paying for my own 'lifestyle'.

If you think I'm even SLIGHTLY bothered that you "used to" think anything of me and don't now, you're sorely mistaken. Actually, I have no idea why you mentioned it. It's not exactly on-topic, is it? How likely am I to change my mind based on this reasoned and structured argument? It's a poor debater that takes things to heart and can't keep things in context. Check the arguments Swift and I have. What goes on in the Opinions forum stays in the Opinions forum.

like you, im not even SLIGHTLY bothered what you think, but you should learn some respect. i never started with the insults - you did (ie 'scrounger', 'ninja death squads led by people like me'). i always apologise if im in error, do you?

At what point does it make sense that "You're rich. You must pay for my lifestyle."? At what level does it become right? You're okay with 40%, it seems. Would you be fine with 50%? 60%? 80%? 100%? After all, they're rich. They've worked hard, or been prurient with their money, so it's only right we should punish them for it - they're probably smug and live on a 150ft yacht, wondering what Ferrari to buy next, right?

tax should always be based on your ability to pay. the more you earn the more you pay - simple. what do you suggest to be a better alternative?

Onto the subject "Pay for my life or leave the country" isn't very civilised, now is it?

neither is leaving the country to avoid helping someone less fortunate than yourself.

Young male drivers are a higher risk than any other group. They're also typically less well-off as they're at the start of their careers.

Do you want to subsidise their car insurance?

young male drivers subsidise thier own car insurance.

 

[Famine]

I neither stated nor implied that you were a scrounger. If you inferred that, it's your own problem. In fact that's the exact OPPOSITE of what I said...

The "Ninja Death Squads led by people like you" is exactly what it sounds like - led by people LIKE you, who think that taking more from the rich is a justified way of running an economy.

I mentioned the degrees only as a rebuttal to "people with degrees will command a better salary". One would assume I earn more than the national average, whereas in fact I don't. However, in OTHER arguments, where degrees in the field of genetics are valid tools (like the Evolution thread) I'll mention it in passing quite a lot.

one minute you say that the government paid for you first degree, then you state that you have 'NEVER' had to rely on handouts from that same government. which is it? or doesnt your argument apply when you go to university? like i said earlier your a hypocrite.

Next you'll be blaming me for going to school...

That was the system at the time - tuition fees didn't exist. They weren't PAID by the government TO the universities. Rather the universities didn't charge them. I got a student loan to cover my living costs.

I am a net contributor - despite my salary - to the UK's Exchequer. I have never received money from the Government for any purpose. So I ask again - HOW is this hypocritical?

young male drivers subsidise thier own car insurance.

Precisely my point.

Those who are more likely to be ill and need healthcare are more likely to be less well off, said James. The implication there is that the rich SHOULD subsidise the health service for the poor because the poor can't afford it.

Young male drivers are more of a risk and more likely to be less well off. The same scheme would see you and I - and better off people - subsidising their car insurance. In the real world, they do it themselves with higher premiums. So.. why are "less well off" people okay to pay this - a luxury - but not the tax for the services they use?

 

[skicrush]

I don't believe in personal responsibility. I think everyone should spend every penny they come across, because the gov't will always bail them out, and they will totally miss out if they aren't having the maximum amount of fun permitted by their income (all the income they can garner from any source).

In case ANYONE missed it, there was a small bit of sarcasm in the above paragraph. Why do you all imagine that people are not responsible for THEMSELVES? Why do they "deserve" a safety net? If I lost my job today, I'd be working as a carpenter or something by next week. In fact, I could live for a year off my savings account. Money I've saved in the last 2 YEARS, even though 3 years after graduation I barely make the average salary for my field. Why am I a member fo the Crappy Car Club? Because I am not foolish enough to take the money we've saved and go out and buy the most expensive car I can afford. My wife and I could both be driving brand new cars right now. Instead, we paid cash for the crappy cars we have, and we live within our means. I haven't gone skiing in 3 years, even though it is one of my favorite things in the world (I used to be a ski instructor in college, and I have Jackson Hole, Big Sky, Grand Targhee, and Sun Valley all within 2 hours of me--4 of the best ski resorts in the world). I don't golf unless my father in law takes me. We don't even have cable TV. I'm going back to school, and bet I'll do even LESS of those things I love for the next 2-4 years. But I'll pay for it myself, and pay back my loans myself.

And that's the problem with the welfare state. My brother is in law school. He asks for (and gets) several hundred dollars every month or so from my parents. My parents were going to go on a big family trip this summer, and offered to "help" my family out to be able to afford it. And my brother's family would be the only ones not going on this family vacation. So of course, my parents would have to pay for them, because that just wouldn't be fair. Now, my brother buys new games for his Game cube and his Xbox all the time. Goes golfing all the time. And given that they are always short a few hundred bucks every month, that pretty much means that my parents are paying for my brother to go golfing and to buy new video games.

Meanwhile, I go without, saving my pennies to be able to pay for school myself. To be able to support myself. Are my parents the gov't? No. Would the gov't step in if they weren't there? You bet. And who is funding that lifestyle?

 

[vladimir]

new zealand!

 

[smellysocks12]

This example (by M-Spec) is a good example of why you guys have the ideas you have, but it is still different. A society is slightly more complex than a group of 5 people sitting around a tv watching a football game. Of course people leeching from a richer person are wrong and being parasite. The whole idea behind my reasoning is that if someone doesn't have the money to be able to provide themselves of a living, a rich person can miss something for the meanwhile. I don't mean that people should build their lives around someone else's fortune without having to change something about their lifestyle.


That's how social security works in most society, you only get welfare when you are actively searching for a job. Which is a good thing, I also wouldn't want people to sit on their ass all day watching tv getting paid. This catching net I'm speaking of isn't for these type of people. There should be guaranteed social security for everyone who needs a kickstart to get going in society and for people who were unfortunate enough to experience a fallback, like becoming sick or getting fired.

Someone being rich does have the same securities, how many rich people went backrupt due to wrong investments, or gambling, or theft? They also could fall back on those securities. Being rich now doesn't guarantee that they won't every have to use it. I doubt I can ever convince you guys that rich people should be paying more because they can pay more, I can't think of any arguments that would change your minds, but that's just how I feel about it.

$100 is a lot of money to a poor person, while a rich person wouldn't even notice a difference. The mentality that you need every penny you earned (or have without earning it) reminds me of him, who was obviously intended to be a mean character in the comic:

 

[Famine]

If you didn't "need" every penny you earned, you'd take a lower paying job.

 

[smellysocks12]

If you didn't "need" every penny you earned, you'd take a lower paying job.

We aren't really talking about jobs here, are we? People with the highest income don't have jobs, they have companies. They're the owners of companies. They hire people to do the work for them. If you work hard, make lots of hours to get a high income, then I do agree these people shouldn't be paying more than anyone else. Though I believe that investors who rake in the big billions because others did their work well can miss a higher percentage of their income.


To give an extreme example, do you believe Paris Hilton earned her income and shouldn't be paying more? As a matter of fact she isn't even the investor, her father is. People like her are less useless to society than the person cleaning the toilets at your work.


If anything I will agree on is that the different tax levels should be moved upwards a bit, that you start paying 40% over the income higher than 50K.

 

[skicrush]

Hasn't anyone ever heard of the millionaire next door? High paying jobs don't create millionaires--they create themselves, no matter how much they make. Most of the "poor" we're talkng about wouldn't BE poor if they just lived within their means.