|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: English social cleansing
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
... *Can anyone explain to me why you incentivise poor people by taking money away from them, but incentivise CEOs by giving them more?
Poor people are motivated to do whatever it takes to survive and care for their families. Rich people are apparently only motivated by greed. One can argue whether this is true or not, fair or not, but it is how public policy is justified. We can't allow the safety net to become a hammock, but the rich will pack up and leave if they aren't making "enough" money.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Aren't we also going back to a notion of the undeserving poor, who actually should be punished? Of course, no politician is going to say that explicitly, but current withdrawals of benefits for relatively minor infringements, suggest it. In fact, a while ago, I think Osborne made a crack about people still in bed, with the curtains shut - inference, they are lazy and undeserving of help.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The trouble is, some of us have relatives who are exactly the type of person people have in mind when they utter the word 'scrounger'.
I'm not ashamed of it because they're sentient adults who make their own choices, but I have 3 adult (50+) relatives who have never had a proper job, who have spent their entire adult lives claiming one benefit or another, who have always been housed at public expense, who have fathered (they're all male) children and given nothing towards their upkeep and made precious little effort with their upbringing.
Various well-meaning family members have over the years contributed significant sums to provide furniture, transport, holidays, etc, etc, etc; other family members have taken over the housing and educating of children.
These three men feel no shame, all three will happily (and at length) tell you how "the tory system and tory class" is ruining the country and none sees anything wrong with having spent 30+ years taking out of a system to which they have contributed nothing.
Do I consider these three (and their various non-working partners) "undeserving" - yes, because they are.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The trouble is, some of us have relatives who are exactly the type of person people have in mind when they utter the word 'scrounger'.
I'm not ashamed of it because they're sentient adults who make their own choices, but I have 3 adult (50+) relatives who have never had a proper job, who have spent their entire adult lives claiming one benefit or another, who have always been housed at public expense, who have fathered (they're all male) children and given nothing towards their upkeep and made precious little effort with their upbringing.
Various well-meaning family members have over the years contributed significant sums to provide furniture, transport, holidays, etc, etc, etc; other family members have taken over the housing and educating of children.
These three men feel no shame, all three will happily (and at length) tell you how "the tory system and tory class" is ruining the country and none sees anything wrong with having spent 30+ years taking out of a system to which they have contributed nothing.
Do I consider these three (and their various non-working partners) "undeserving" - yes, because they are.
So what would you do with them? Make them homeless?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I'd have no problem with that in principle, if they are indeed as l'o describes and there are no mitigating factors such as mental ill health.
[ 30. March 2015, 13:14: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The trouble is, some of us have relatives who are exactly the type of person people have in mind when they utter the word 'scrounger'.
Well quite. One of my mother's friends was proud that he was able to hide so much of his income from the HMRC, yet was more than happy to claim all the benefits - reduced council tax, blue badge, winter fuel, state pension, NHS treatment - that he could.
I'm sorry you have relatives like that. Fortunately for me, I'm not directly related to anyone with an offshore account or works in the City.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Doc Tor quote:
Fortunately for me, I'm not directly related to anyone with an offshore account or works in the City.
Eh?
What is wrong with working in the City of London?
As for an 'offshore' account, plenty of us have them, and declare them, and pay tax on any interest earned. I first got an 'offshore' account so I could be paid for some work I did in a foreign country where I knew I was likely to be going from time-to-time for a considerable time. So I have that account and pay interest on any money in it to the tax authorities of the country, and if that turns out to be less than my tax liability here then I pay the difference to HMRC.
Don't assume everyone is on the fiddle - most of us are honest.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Doc Tor quote:
Fortunately for me, I'm not directly related to anyone with an offshore account or works in the City.
Eh?
What is wrong with working in the City of London?
As for an 'offshore' account, plenty of us have them, and declare them, and pay tax on any interest earned. I first got an 'offshore' account so I could be paid for some work I did in a foreign country where I knew I was likely to be going from time-to-time for a considerable time. So I have that account and pay interest on any money in it to the tax authorities of the country, and if that turns out to be less than my tax liability here then I pay the difference to HMRC.
Don't assume everyone is on the fiddle - most of us are honest.
Indeed.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Don't assume everyone is on the fiddle - most of us are honest.
Scrounger means different things to different people.
I genuinely believe that if you can work, you should. Nothing comes for free. I also genuinely believe that if you earn, you pay all your taxes and don't chisel. And that those on benefits who do game the system cost the country far, far less than those who have great wealth and game the system.
If the only thing that comes out of a little bit of satire on my part is that you remember that the vast majority of benefit claimants are honest, decent people, and that the problem with 'scroungers' is disproportionately at the top of society, and not at the bottom, then my work is done.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
...the problem with 'scroungers' is disproportionately at the top of society, and not at the bottom
It's my impression that most of it isn't even done by people, but by companies.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
...the problem with 'scroungers' is disproportionately at the top of society, and not at the bottom
It's my impression that most of it isn't even done by people, but by companies.
Oh, there's a lot of that too. But companies are comprised of people.
Basically, people. And yes, I do think most folk are mostly decent, and it isn't just fear of getting caught that curbs their baser instincts. But there's an awful lot of money at the top, and very few sanctions in place if they are caught - whereas at the bottom, there's very little to play for and the penalties Draconian.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I have to agree with Marvin. The economy and legal system too are designed with companies, ie legal entities that are not people, in mind. While limited companies and the like can sue and be sued they cannot be sent down for five years and it is very rare for the owners of same to suffer any criminal proceedings.
I doubt any party would advocate levelling this particular playing field as it would put investors off if instead of losing their money they might, God forbid, be held responsible for what has been done in their name.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I have to agree with Marvin. The economy and legal system too are designed with companies, ie legal entities that are not people, in mind.
Sure, but equally there are plenty of high net worth individuals who arrange their affairs so that their assets are effectively owned via interconnected sets of companies - so I don't think you can absolve *individuals* of responsibility so easily.
The figures for money lost via tax evasion (rather than tax avoidance of the sort above) dwarfs the money lost in benefit fraud. Evasion will largely be down to individuals.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I have to agree with Marvin. The economy and legal system too are designed with companies, ie legal entities that are not people, in mind.
Sure, but equally there are plenty of high net worth individuals who arrange their affairs so that their assets are effectively owned via interconnected sets of companies - so I don't think you can absolve *individuals* of responsibility so easily.
The figures for money lost via tax evasion (rather than tax avoidance of the sort above) dwarfs the money lost in benefit fraud. Evasion will largely be down to individuals.
I wouldn't absolve individuals of responsibility - far from it - but it is my view that the very structure of companies facilitates tax evasion. If I could arrange my household finances as a limited company can, I'm sure I would pay far less tax. PAYE may be convenient for the Treasury, but anyone with the option seems to use alternative means, whatever they may be.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Do I consider these three (and their various non-working partners) "undeserving" - yes, because they are.
And have Mr Cameron's reforms caused these people to get jobs and contribute to society?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Do I consider these three (and their various non-working partners) "undeserving" - yes, because they are.
And have Mr Cameron's reforms caused these people to get jobs and contribute to society?
Never mind that; are they being punished with sufficient severity, so that the rest of us can enjoy feelings of smug Schadenfreude?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
The Supreme Court on Thursday appears to have thrown a life line to some in this situation. Although whether this is a partial life line remains to be seen.
( hopeless at linking, need to visit that place where one learns...sorry....)
[ 03. April 2015, 12:55: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I wouldn't absolve individuals of responsibility - far from it - but it is my view that the very structure of companies facilitates tax evasion. If I could arrange my household finances as a limited company can, I'm sure I would pay far less tax. PAYE may be convenient for the Treasury, but anyone with the option seems to use alternative means, whatever they may be.
PAYE is collected from employers. They don't have to be companies.
That aside, you're picking the wrong target. You should take aim at trusts. There are plenty of good commercial reasons to incorporate a limited company. For example, it makes administration of a decent-sized business concern much more easy than any of the legal alternatives. That's a great help to commerce, which in turn generates more income to tax. By contrast, people use trusts so they can tell the taxman, a creditor, or the state administrators of various benefits that they haven't any money.
There are three ways in which the taxman loses out. The first is tax avoidance. I note at this point that the Coalition has brought in the UK's first anti-avoidance provision. The second is evasion (ie, lying on your tax return). The third is insolvency.
Now, there are plenty of ways to avoid tax without using limited companies. Imagine the following. Sterboks Rooibos Cafe trades in countries A and B. It does so under an agreement with Sterboks Bermuda Ltd that the cost of using Sterboks' logo is equal to the annual profit (other than that particular cost). Once it is deducted, Sterboks' profit in countries A and B is zero. However, it's profit in Bermuda is equal to the amount paid to Sterboks Bermuda Ltd. However, there's no particular reason why the owner of the logo can't be Mr Sterbok rather than a limited company. The law deems limited companies and humans as people.
Both humans and companies can evade tax. In the case of the latter, it is due to the company officers telling fibs, and I would be astonished if HMRC didn't prosecute the officers (and/or the company) and have them sent to prison in plenty of situations like that.
The final one is insolvency. I note that companies are designed to allow people to trade in the knowledge that they have some protection for their personal assets if things go wrong. If the company ends up insolvent, it will be liquidated, and the creditors' rights are wiped out. However, the alternative is probably much less commerce, and therefore less tax collection. Also, individuals can go bankrupt leaving creditors out of pocket in just the same way.
But if a person is careful enough to put all his assets in a discretionary trust, the creditors generally can't touch it because he can say it isn't "his". Because it's discretionary, it isn't anyone else's either... So, for the period of his bankruptcy he can laze by the swimming pool that isn't his, because he is the trustee and he says what happens to the property.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
