The Dread Budget - Be very Afraid !

[Sp!ke]

It's not the poor who we want to deny the vote to but those that "choose" not to contribute anything back to society.

The two are very different.

 

[Scott_F]

It's not the poor who we want to deny the vote to but those that "choose" not to contribute anything back to society.

The two are very different.

The two are indeed very different.

However, the idea that was mooted here earlier was "No representation without taxation".

It made no distinction whatsoever.

 

[Rovinghawk]

please educate everyone and show were these profits are, i know the companies turned a profit and the shareholders got there kick back but have the banks repaid the billions they stole?

The shares are now valued higher than the price paid. Whilst I accept that there is no actual profit or loss until a sale is made, this is nevertheless technically a profit.

Which bank 'stole' what? I know about stupid & reckless investment but nothing about theft. Was there embezzlement or fraud?

RH

 

[stevieb15]

AFAICR St Paul's was about "illegal" clubs / drinking houses being raided / closed down?

Close, it was centred on a place called the Black and White Cafe, which was a front for a massive drugs distribution racket, involving iirc school kids, taxis, mums pushing prams, when the police raided the cafe the wide ranging gang and their associates orchestrated a riot.
Nothing to do with social injustice, more about loss of opportunity to continue to exploit the weak minded.

 

[davethemus]

The shares are now valued higher than the price paid. Whilst I accept that there is no actual profit or loss until a sale is made, this is nevertheless technically a profit.

Which bank 'stole' what? I know about stupid & reckless investment but nothing about theft. Was there embezzlement or fraud?

RH

your being very obtuse if you deny fraud was at the heart of the financial crisis, wholesale fraud took place from top to bottom, lenders cooking the books to 'help' people get mortgages they couldn't afford and borrowers lying about earnings to buy houses they otherwise wouldn't dream about, also elderly couples who owned there home outright and were prayed upon by, for want of a better word, hawks, who convinced them to refinance there home and 'free up' some of that equity.

 

[NormanC]

Scott_F has valiantly argued his case in a number of postings, but I don't think that he has convinced the majority here.

I believe that he hasn't seen the biggest single factor in the problems he presents.

The basic problem is that those at the bottom of the so-called social divide have no desire to raise themselves out of it. They want to be pulled up by others, making no contribution themselves.

In society today anything is achievable if one makes the effort.

An example:-

Man, raised on an inner-city council estate marries girl who lives in inner-city private rented accomodation with only toilet being at the end of the garden.

Have 2 children. Eldest leaves university with BA and no debt having lived away from home. Youngest leaves university with PhD and no debt having lived away from home.

Couple's parents all die leaving total legacies of £800 having never owned property.

Couple work hard, provide for children, buy home and save money. Man made redundant 3 times. Go to pub about once a year. Change car for another second-hand one every 10 years or so. New television every 20 years or so. Have holiday every year. Have wonderful, fulfilled life with friends and family.

End up with assets worth something in the mid six figures and with total debts of about £100.

It can be done by ANYONE who wants to make an effort! If you're not willing to make the effort you should be ashamed. If you support others not to make an effort you should be ashamed.

 

[iscaboy]

Close, it was centred on a place called the Black and White Cafe, which was a front for a massive drugs distribution racket, involving iirc school kids, taxis, mums pushing prams, when the police raided the cafe the wide ranging gang and their associates orchestrated a riot.
Nothing to do with social injustice, more about loss of opportunity to continue to exploit the weak minded.

Sounds about right, knew a chap who lived on the actual street it started on, and he told me exactly what it was about at the time, but I don't suppose I really paid that much attention, and it was a long time ago.

I seem to remember him also saying that there were "soup kitchens" set up to feed the rioters, and nobody was black vs white so much as us vs police.

 

[Sp!ke]

It can be done by ANYONE who wants to make an effort! If you're not willing to make the effort you should be ashamed. If you support others not to make an effort you should be ashamed.

I'll go along with that.

 

[richard]

My understanding is that we're now showing a profit on the bailout. So your point is?

We're only showing a profit on the bailout if you ignore all the dodgy assets that we guaranteed seperately for a minimal insurance premium.

I.e. if you compare the share price that we paid for the bank(s) with the current share price it looks like a profit. But thats because the bad-assets were cheaply guaranteed by us the tax payer and thus they don't affect the share price anymore.

So we insure more than £500 billion of these dodgy assets. And you can be sure the banks only paid the tiny insurance premium for the most likely of their assets to go phut.

I recall the "hype" of us making a profit refering to RBS. RBS insured £325 billion of dodgy assets with us the tax payer.

Just wait for those assets to go bad, I beleive its the tax payer on the hook for those, (unless the government found someone else to pass the risk on to, but I dont think that is likely)

Government launches toxic asset insurance for banks | Reuters

Richard

 

[Scott_F]

Scott_F has valiantly argued his case in a number of postings, but I don't think that he has convinced the majority here.

I believe that he hasn't seen the biggest single factor in the problems he presents.

The basic problem is that those at the bottom of the so-called social divide have no desire to raise themselves out of it. They want to be pulled up by others, making no contribution themselves.

In society today anything is achievable if one makes the effort.

An example:-

Man, raised on an inner-city council estate marries girl who lives in inner-city private rented accomodation with only toilet being at the end of the garden.

Have 2 children. Eldest leaves university with BA and no debt having lived away from home. Youngest leaves university with PhD and no debt having lived away from home.

Couple's parents all die leaving total legacies of £800 having never owned property.

Couple work hard, provide for children, buy home and save money. Man made redundant 3 times. Go to pub about once a year. Change car for another second-hand one every 10 years or so. New television every 20 years or so. Have holiday every year. Have wonderful, fulfilled life with friends and family.

End up with assets worth something in the mid six figures and with total debts of about £100.

It can be done by ANYONE who wants to make an effort! If you're not willing to make the effort you should be ashamed. If you support others not to make an effort you should be ashamed.

"The basic problem is that those at the bottom of the so-called social divide have no desire to raise themselves out of it."

That's several million people that you've just dismissed in a sweeping and ill-considered generalisation.

It is also woefully naive to think that "In society today anything is achievable if one makes the effort" and such a view betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the complexities of the problem and of the realities of daily life for too many people in this country.

No one could deny that there are those who choose to be idle and live of the State. However, for every one family that starts at the bottom, works hard and gets on there will be many more that don't and not simply due to idleness.

Consider those born to families living in poor housing where a single parent can't work due to childcare demands. They then attend schools where there is a history of poor attainment and where virtually everyone else in the class couldn't care less. And that includes the teachers. They are almost certain to leave school with nothing along with all their peers. They find that are few employment opportunities available and those that do exist are temporary schemes that pay dole money, help the Government keep the unemployment figures down but teach you little. Meanwhile, they are exposed from an early age to all of the corrosive temptations that are endemic in these neighbourhoods.

Whilst everyone should be encouraged to work hard and realise their potential, the game of life is far from being an even playing field. For too many the cards are stacked too heavily against them due to the circumstances into which they are born. They simply never stand a chance and that is why we have so many people living in poverty.

"It can be done by ANYONE who wants to make an effort! If you're not willing to make the effort you should be ashamed. If you support others not to make an effort you should be ashamed."

Those here that view anyone too poor to pay income tax as unworthy to vote, advocate a flat rate of income tax so that the poor pay more whilst the better-off pay less or dismiss anyone living on benefits regardless of their circumstances as a scrounger are the ones that really should be ashamed.

Too bad that they just can't see it.

 

[Sp!ke]

I'm sorry but I disagree.

In my very early 20's I was at rock bottom. Out of the blue I became a single parent, had to quit my job, lose my house, go on benefits and concentrate on bringing up my daughter and get my life back in order.

I had absolutely nothing, no support, no money and for six months I was even refused benefit and had to live off a total of £14 per week in child benefit. I literally survived from scavenging through supermarket skips for food just past sell by dates. It really couldn't get any harder.

Within the year I was back in part time employment, (supplemented by some kind of credit I cant recall which), I had a small private rented flat in the rougher end of town and I was slowly getting back on track. I did all manner of horrible jobs to get by. I delivered Pizzas, nearly lost fingers in a wooden Tulip factory, minicab driver, dispatch rider, painter decorator, window cleaner...you name it, I did whatever I could whilst whilst also juggling the responsibilities of being a full time parent. There's plenty of nasty jobs no one wants to do out there if you can be bothered to get off the sofa and look.

My new status as a single parent necessitated a career change (my former career meant long spells away from home) so once my daughter went to nursery full time, I put in more work hours, and started saving for a college course costing £10k. With that under my belt I was now employable in my new field and from then on its been onwards and upwards.

If I can do it under those circumstances (and I consider myself to be lazy), then as long as someone is physically able, then anyone can.

I look around at people I knew from years ago and quite a few of them have made a career out of the benefits system. They duck and dive for bits and bobs on the side, they know the system inside out and play it to the fullest. They all drive cars, have nice houses, big TV's and playstations, go on holiday etc etc.

Let me be clear that it is these people I am advocating we target (there's a hell of a lot of them out there). I'm not suggesting we target those in real need at all. The problem is we need to ensure that the majority of those that do fall into the benefits system do so only temporarily to get themselves out of a hole. The current system has encouraged families where 3 generations have never been officially employed and this cannot be right. Whilst I appreciate that there are some areas in the country where there is high unemployment and few jobs, the answer is that people need to travel or move to where the work is. Look at all the hardworking Poles we have over here that have simply followed the money and got stuck in - often without even being able to speak the language.

The benefits system needs a complete and radical shake up if we want to get this country back on its feet. There'll be no pensions for any of us if we don't.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

I find these threads - and similar real-life conversations - interesting.

Oposing views don't mean the oposers have the extreme opposite views, just that they're on different sides of the mid-point, and it often leads to hidden agreement.

I don't think I've read a post in this thread that doesn't recognise that:

• The cost of benefits is a big cost to carry in the current climate
• Some claimants are unfairly exploiting the system, and they're allowed to
• Some claimants don't get the support they really need, when they really need it
• Everyone has the opportunity not to be dependent upon benefits but the personal circumstances and inclination to do so both differ

So all we need to do as a society is find ways of (1) helping those who want or need help, and find ways of (2) reducing the load from those who genuinely have a choice. Cracking (2) will help to finance (1).

Difficult is finding those ways!!

 

[Alfie]

.......................................................................However, anyone who can see beyond the end of their nose doesn't need reports and research as the evidence is there for anyone who cares to see it. Haven't you ever asked yourself why:
- The top 1% of the population owns nearly 25% of the nations wealth
- The lower 50% owns about 7%
- Our rates of crime are amongst the highest in the West - especially violent crime
- We have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe
- So many of our young people still leave school with few if any qualifications
- We have over 1 million young people who are workless and not in any sort of training or education
- We jail a higher proportion of the population than any other developed nation apart from the USA (a society with even greater wealth disparity than our own).

There's your evidence for goodness sake.

Yes and its the top 5% earners in the Uk that pay the vast bulk of the tax bill. Raising tax rates makes some of these people leave and the revenue generated actually goes down. I personally know a few people who now pay in total 55% of their income in taxation of one form or another. Much more and they will be off. Some have already gone.

The lower 50% contribute very little to the total bill.

Our crime is one of the highest because the last administration removed all responsibility from people and ushered in the touchy feely slappy wristy when naughty ethos. Bring back accountability and discipline in schools and things will improve. Sadly we have had a whole generation or more grow up under this weak and innefectual administration. Now we are all paying for it not just through our pockets.

The rest of your points are related to the above.

Moving on......

VAT will actually hit the richest more than the poorest because the rich buy more things and they generally cost a lot more aswell. Therefore 20% of a lot more is a lot more if you get my drift.

Interestingly it emerges that the last administration actually destroyed manufacturing in the country from 20% to 12%. Far more than Mrs thatcher ever did.

 

[Rovinghawk]

a flat rate of income tax so that the poor pay more whilst the better-off pay less.

My degree is engineering rather than mathematics but surely a percentage of a large amount is more than the same percentage of a smaller amount?

Is your arithmetic poor or are you using disingenuous semantics?

RH

 

[Mr E]

Those here that view anyone too poor to pay income tax as unworthy to vote, advocate a flat rate of income tax so that the poor pay more whilst the better-off pay less or dismiss anyone living on benefits regardless of their circumstances as a scrounger are the ones that really should be ashamed.

I'm not ashamed - I've just never heard an argument against it that makes any sense.

There are far too many loopholes in the tax system, and too many schemes that can be leveraged by those who were not the target. I know many directors, for example, who, by working wholly within the tax system with their accountants, pay little or no tax even when their earning are well into 6 figure territory (and these are not owner/directors who've actually put skin into the game).

We need to find a fair and equitable balance between encouraging people to get up and do something and seemingly penalising those who are prepared to put the effort in. Far from taxing those atthe bottom end more, streamlining the system and closing the loopholes would enable the lower threasholds for tax to rise.

 

[NormanC]

In response to Scott_F.....

That's several million people that you've just dismissed in a sweeping and ill-considered generalisation.

Sorry, but just following your lead.

Consider those born to families living in poor housing where a single parent can't work due to childcare demands.

Spending full-time with a parent pre-school is a great benefit - think of the start one could get in reading, writing and arithmetic.

They then attend schools where there is a history of poor attainment and where virtually everyone else in the class couldn't care less.

Why should that make any difference to how much an individual tries? It's a cop out to say I won't bother because those about me won't. Furthermore, education is not just about school. Provided that someone has basic reading skills (that they have been taught at home by the single parent looking after them) they can educate themselves to any level they wish. All it takes is effort.

And that includes the teachers.

Show the teachers in such a school a pupil with a desire to learn and they will do everything possible to help that pupil. They appear not to care because their caring makes not a jot of difference in the face of pupil laziness and disruption.

They are almost certain to leave school with nothing along with all their peers.

Because they can't be bothered to do anything about it.

They find that are few employment opportunities available

Because they have no qualifications.

and those that do exist are temporary schemes that pay dole money, help the Government keep the unemployment figures down but teach you little.

Why should they earn any more than dole money? They have little to offer (having no qualifications) and are being taught something. Whether they are learning something is a different question.

Meanwhile, they are exposed from an early age to all of the corrosive temptations that are endemic in these neighbourhoods.

Being exposed to temptations doesn't mean one has to succumb to them. It doesn't take much education and moral fibre to resist what is so obviously harmful, both to society and to oneself as an individual.

Whilst everyone should be encouraged to work hard and realise their potential, the game of life is far from being an even playing field.

Absolutely true. It just means that some have to make greater efforts than others.

For too many the cards are stacked too heavily against them due to the circumstances into which they are born. They simply never stand a chance and that is why we have so many people living in poverty.

I see the solution you are proposing. No-one is allowed to have children unless they are socially, morally and financially suitable persons in a life-long relationship. I wouldn't like to make the decision as to who was suitable, but it will work.

I gave an example of someone who went from inner-city council estate to having a comfortable existence. This shows that it can be done by anyone willing to make the effort.

Spike has given a much more horrendous story but, again, the adversities were overcome by making an effort.

Obviously, there will always be those who, because of proven medical disabilities, are unable to help themselves and society should always take care of them. However, the rest just need to make the effort.

So many people have been brainwashed by the politicians of all colours who have spent years shouting about rights without a single mention of responsibilities. Rights are only capable of being exercised when responsibilities are acted upon.

Instead of making sweeping and ill-considered generalisations could you not provide specific examples of those who cannot lift themselves from the bottom end of society (excluding those with proven medical disabilities)? Others who argue against you have already given specific examples to back up their arguments.

 

[Scott_F]

Yes and its the top 5% earners in the Uk that pay the vast bulk of the tax bill. Raising tax rates makes some of these people leave and the revenue generated actually goes down. I personally know a few people who now pay in total 55% of their income in taxation of one form or another. Much more and they will be off. Some have already gone.

The lower 50% contribute very little to the total bill.

Our crime is one of the highest because the last administration removed all responsibility from people and ushered in the touchy feely slappy wristy when naughty ethos. Bring back accountability and discipline in schools and things will improve. Sadly we have had a whole generation or more grow up under this weak and innefectual administration. Now we are all paying for it not just through our pockets.

The rest of your points are related to the above.

Moving on......

VAT will actually hit the richest more than the poorest because the rich buy more things and they generally cost a lot more aswell. Therefore 20% of a lot more is a lot more if you get my drift.

Interestingly it emerges that the last administration actually destroyed manufacturing in the country from 20% to 12%. Far more than Mrs thatcher ever did.

No I don't get your drift at all.

My initial point was that we have greater disparity of wealth in this country than in most other developed nations regardless of who pays the most tax.

Our crime figures our not the entire responsibility of the last Government or a result of some "touchy feely slappy wristy when naughty ethos". They have been rising steadily for years despite attempts by successive Governments to produce statistics that would have us believe otherwise.

Your views on the increase in VAT are also incorrect. If you have a good income then you probably don't spend all you earn and have surplus funds to save, invest and spend on expensive luxuries and why not ? If you earn minimum wage or are on benefits and are trying to bring up a family then you are unlikely to have any spare funds and will have to scrimp and save each week in order to make ends meet. Therefore the VAT increase will probably mean that you can no longer buy some of the essentials that were already a struggle to afford.

You must therefore be the only person in the entire country who thinks that an increase in VAT to 20% will hit the better-off harder than the poor.

 

[Mr E]

Interestingly it emerges that the last administration actually destroyed manufacturing in the country from 20% to 12%. Far more than Mrs thatcher ever did.

It's stats review time for me and my team at the moment - interestingly I can't see the stats that match what you quote. I'd be interesting in knowing where they came from as I could use them in the work the team is currently doing.

What I can see is that GDP rose 33.7% since 1997 - if most of that came through services / finance then, even with a fixed manufacturing base, we'd see the reported level (based on contribution to GDP) back down to some 15%.

This link is interesting as it shows production up by 3% until 2008 at which time it then plummets. Scroll down to the bottom to see the relative levels contributed by each sector.

 

[NormanC]

You must therefore be the only person in the entire country who thinks that an increase in VAT to 20% will hit the better-off harder than the poor.

Absolutely not.

As far as I was aware, essentials are VAT exempt (except for energy where the 5% rate is not changing).

 

[Scott_F]

Absolutely not.

As far as I was aware, essentials are VAT exempt (except for energy where the 5% rate is not changing).

Fuel for your old banger to get you to work.....clothes for adults.....?