Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 19:06:32 GMT

Wynne

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Marie Kubiak — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 19:04:03 GMT

I think we need to agree to disagree and let this return back on topic!

Marie

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 18:46:37 GMT

They're not just further stretching themselves. They're further stretching all of us who are robbed to support them. We can't afford them. If benefits didn't exist, then claimants would soon rediscover their work ethic

Wynne

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Marie Kubiak — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 18:30:27 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Typo I should have written "unemployed's children, or children of unemployed parents" I agree about supported by parents. No part of the burden should fall on taxpayers.[/quote]

I agree it is not great for people struggling to support themselves to further stretch themselves by expanding their family. However I don't feel it is the right of anyone else to forcibly remove that possibility- that is going too far. How can anyone make that decision on another competent person's behalf?

There will always be people relying on the state- some very justifiable, others less so. Money is better spent improving education and working opportunities to make it more favourable for the unjustified benefit claimants to work than to undermine humanity's trust in the state with forcible sterilisation.

I for one would rather my taxes abetted someone manipulating the system to a low degree than funded mass control of people's family choices.

Marie

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 15:19:03 GMT

Typo I should have written "unemployed's children, or children of unemployed parents" I agree about supported by parents. No part of the burden should fall on taxpayers.

Evelyn 100% agreement.

Francisco. Exactly what happened under the socialists. Trade Union money kept the Labour party afloat. Their block votes determined leadership,and sponsorship selected parliamentary candidates, and in the dreadful 70s, their barons would arrogantly stride into Downing Street to dictate policy.

Wynne

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Francisco Gomez — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 15:18:03 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

Evasion is a criminal offence.

Avoidance is legal and is one's right

[/quote]

Yes.

But you won't deny that 'donations' to one or another party isn't far (in some cases equals) from buying policy.

It might be very legal to keep millions from your profit and not even face jail sentences when being caught stealing (or even have the power to delay it beyond your own death) but it certainly immoral when you use your 'donation' power to make these loopholes beneficial to you and influence goverments to cut somewhere else.

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Marie Kubiak — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 14:44:22 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Marie. Who feeds unemployed children? Taxpayers simply can't. They haven't got the money.............end of. Starvation isn't humane.[/quote]

I'm not sure I follow. Do you want children to be working to earn money? Children should be unemployed in my opinion to have a childhood and be supported by their parents in an ideal world.

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 14:18:22 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]I can't remember the exact figures, but while benefit fraud is of course unacceptable it costs the taxpayer around £1.3 billion, compared to around £34 billion for tax avoidance/evasion per year.[/quote]

Avoidance or evasion? Yes, I know that etymologically the two words mean the same, but legally they are very different.

Evasion is a criminal offence.

Avoidance is legal and is one's right ("It is the right of every citizen to so organise his affairs under the law as to pay the minimum of tax" is a legal axiom – I can't remember who said it and I've probably got the exact wording wrong); and, I would maintain, one's duty. Certainly for a limited company it's a duty. (Of course, if you wish to voluntarily pay extra tax, no-one's stopping you.) Thus to say that tax avoidance "costs the taxpayer" a certain amount is as logical as saying that not having a Window Tax costs the taxpayer a certain amount.

Of course if you think the law is manipulated and made by bloated capitalists (probably all wearing top hats and spats), not to mention the imperialist warmongers and their Western running dogs, you might be happier living in China. Oh, they have a good way with corruption and fraud in China, too.

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 14:11:15 GMT

Marie. Who feeds unemployed children? Taxpayers simply can't. They haven't got the money.............end of. Starvation isn't humane.

If people could be trusted to govern their own fertility, then poverty (world wide ) would have been bred out generations ago. World population wouldn't have exploded from a barely manageable 2.65 billion to an utterly out of control 7.5 billion during my lifetime either.

Wynne

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Neil Wheadon — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 12:08:38 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Child benefit would be the 1st I'd abolish.[/quote]

I genuinely feel Wynne that you need to get out more from your cosey corner in the Gower. Maybe volunteering for Samaritans or doing some voluntary work in deprived communities. From your posts you're obviously a principled person with strident views which is not a bad thing but you need a sense of balance as to what's actually going on in the world.

Child Benefit originated because wives had no access to family finances, in reality the husband drank the lot or refused to support. It gave the wife a sense of financial independence. Poverty exists in this country and 'beneath the surface' things aren't great for many families.

Oddly I agree with you on population growth, it is THE issue facing mankind, it's with a sense of relief that I see population dropping in Westernised Countries, but there are so many factors.

As a bunch of pontificating professionals we are indeed fortunate......

Neil

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Marie Kubiak — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 11:59:39 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]and they'd be neutered in orde to claim that.[/quote]

Enforced systematic sterilisation has been recognized as a crime against humanity by the International criminal court. So as well as being of abhorrant morals to support such action you would also be breaking the law. By your beliefs you should then be facing maximum deterrant sentence/capital punishment yourself.

I believe other outspoken historical political figures supported sterilisation of what they considered 'subclasses' of humanity and refusing support to the disabled/needy. They are not remembered fondly for good reason.

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 08:55:04 GMT

There's definite grounds for the criminal prosecution of both Fred Goodwin and Philip Green. If convicted, I'd like to see both given deterrant sentences. I am, however thoroughly approving of the action of the Duke of Westminster, who, very sensibly took a lawfull precaution against theft.

Clive That merely proves there's far far too many benefits. Child benefit would be the 1st I'd abolish. Also housing benefit, and I'd reduce all other benefits to a max per adult of around £25 per week...........and they'd be neutered in orde to claim that.

Wynne

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Clive Ansell — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 08:46:06 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Benefit claimants unfortunately have the vote.[/quote]

Seriously? you would deny benefit claimants the right to vote??

Would that be all benefit claimants? including the sick and disabled? pensioners? pregnant mothers? people with children? those on low income tops?

Anyway; most benefit claimants pay tax too, most benefits ae taxable, and all will be paying VAT of course.

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Francisco Gomez — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:43:32 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

wholly legitimate lawful tax avoidance which is no different from locking the door when you go out. It's simply a way to protect yourself from theft.

[/quote]

A way to protect yourself? Oh my! I can't believe what I'm reading! So you are happy to let fat cats make legal certain loopholes to make sure they get fatter and let them get away with 'it's simply to protect themselves' while they push MPs to tax you more instead of themselves. Pretty much they are making you pay for the benefit safety net in society while they enjoy their never ending holidays in their yatch. Just like the owner of BHS.. I wonder if he will ever see the darkness of a cell while you blame chavs going to the chippy in tracksuit bottoms with the only crime of being poorly educated.. just because tax avoiding fat cats are draining the system from a properly designed education system. Oh God!

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Neil Wheadon — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:40:13 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]They also fail to differentiate between illegal tax evasion, which like all other crime needs to be totally abolished with deterrant punishments[/quote]

Have you ever paid cash Wynne to a tradesman, childminder (OK you're excluded) chimneysweep, tipped a hairdresser...?

I would suggest this is a huge problem

In Greece, they brought a law out that you can only withdraw 80 euros out a day regardless of the size of the business (Could you manage?). It has turned the whole place into a cash economy, further decreasing the tax take. Clever people will always find a way.

Neil

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:31:19 GMT

Benefit claimants unfortunately have the vote. If I had my way, I'd reverse the slogan of the American Revolution, and say " No representation without taxation" I'd only allow people to vote if they were taxpayers, and had been for a minimum of 10 years.

Also, although Clive's figures state the amount of benefit fraud, they don't give the total benefit bill, which is eye-watering. They also fail to differentiate between illegal tax evasion, which like all other crime needs to be totally abolished with deterrant punishments, and wholly legitimate lawful tax avoidance which is no different from locking the door when you go out. It's simply a way to protect yourself from theft.

Wynne

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Francisco Gomez — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:25:25 GMT

34 times more in tax avoidance than in benefit claim fraud! Insane! And you can't catch these criminals because the make law! Wynne that's terryfing. No matter how much people claim in benefits, the country's financial problems would be solved if it weren't for these crooks! It would even be in surplus!

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Francisco Gomez — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:16:54 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Some benefit claimants would need to earn £35k pre-tax to have as much money as they receive in benefits.

That's immoral

[/quote]

Well.. if Clive's figures are correct, benefit excess seems to be a drop in the ocean compared to to right-wing conservative supported tax avoiding well off companies -which by the way- have some sort of say in law making (that really seem immoral!) While benefit claimants have none. See for example Sir Andrew Cook threatening over his recent donations to the Conservative party, or Arron Banks, with his views about UKIP leadership. It seems to me that, in Wynne's ideal world, they, who inherited the most, have power to influence the poor poor tax payers. Both of these personalities, to show an example, come from well off families. Arron was even spelled from his privately paid school for 'accumualtion of offences' and still today has so much influence in the British people that spent millions in the Leave campaign to obtain the result he wanted. So much for democracy eh? Well, no use to complain, that's the world people want nowadays, being told what to do not by poorly designed democratic institutions, but by people who simply have money to impose their ideology.

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 19:23:48 GMT

Some benefit claimants would need to earn £35k pre-tax to have as much money as they receive in benefits.

That's immoral

Wynne

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Clive Ansell — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 18:23:20 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]not only abolish benefit fraud, but really cut back on benefit extent and levels.[/quote]

Almost impossible. Benefits have been ruthlessly cut as it is, Already we are seeing more homeless people, and people relying on food banks for food. Is this really what folk want to see in a civilised country in the 21st century?

Benefit payments to the jobless is a much smaller amount paid to those in work as top ups. One fundamental error of this government is the propagation of the low wage economy; there are more people working in low paid jobs, therefore paying little or no tax, and relying on benefit top ups - so, no or little contribution to the economy.

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Privatise the NHS[/quote]

I sincerely hope not, but I guess it will be an inevitable consequence if this government remains in power.

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 16:52:15 GMT

I agree that payback time is coming, and it's sooner rather than later. I also agree that illegal tax evasion should be totally stamped out, but I have nothing against legal means of reducing government theft.

I disagree that expenditure is cut to the bone....................not only abolish benefit fraud, but really cut back on benefit extent and levels. Privatise the NHS, reduce government staffing levels. Total government expenditure is at least twice as much as is absolutely necessary.

Wynne

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Clive Ansell — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 16:38:32 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]They call themselves Conservatives, but David Cameron was really a socialist. We haven't had a true Conservative prime minister since Margaret Thatcher. We desperately need another like her, who is prepared to deal with the social security fraudsters the way she dealt with the union barons.[/quote]

I can't remember the exact figures, but while benefit fraud is of course unacceptable it costs the taxpayer around £1.3 billion, compared to around £34 billion for tax avoidance/evasion per year.

Whichever side of the political fence one sits, with ever increasing levels of national, household, and personal debt - at what point do we say we cannot borrow anymore, we cannot continue getting in to further and further debt?

Someday, somehow it is going to be payback time. To reduce debt revenue has to increase (taxes) and/or expenditure decrease (Already cut right back to the bone). Tax rises are on the way, it's inevitable.

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 15:13:17 GMT

They call themselves Conservatives, but David Cameron was really a socialist. We haven't had a true Conservative prime minister since Margaret Thatcher. We desperately need another like her, who is prepared to deal with the social security fraudsters the way she dealt with the union barons.

Wynne

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Clive Ansell — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 13:16:20 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]The easiest way to reduce the national debt is for the government to spend less, i e less socialism.[/quote]

Socialism? - but taxes, and consumer and national debt have risen, and continue to rise, under the conservatives who have been in office since 2010.

Average household debt excluding mortgages is something like £13000 and rising.

Next tax rises, most of us are going to see are inflation busting council tax rises this year, as well as increases in insurance premium tax.

Another way of reducing national debt is to tax the very rich a little (yes, just a little) more. Wednesday just gone, the 4th Jan, was apparently fat cat Wednesday, which was the point in time where the highest earners have earned in two and a half days, what the average Joe earns in a year - they should be contributing more.

RE: Brexit thinking just before Art.50 trigger.

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 10:02:43 GMT

The easiest way to reduce the national debt is for the government to spend less, i e less socialism.

The easiest way to improve the balance of payments is to make our industry internationally competitive, i e stop artificially elevating production costs with ridiculously high levels of taxation. I've been pointing out both of those facts for years. It now seems Neil is in agreement with me that we can't carry on as we've ben doing. Whether he is sufficiently clear-headed to face up to the necessity of solving the problem is another matter.

Wynne