You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Scroungers
March 28 2024 11.42am

Scroungers

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

 

View kingdowieonthewall's Profile kingdowieonthewall Flag Sussex, ex-Cronx. 08 Jul 15 3.44pm Send a Private Message to kingdowieonthewall Add kingdowieonthewall as a friend

Quote serial thriller at 08 Jul 2015 12.19pm

[Link]

I f*cking hate these people who are so reliant on the state while the rest of us have to make our own way in the world through good honest hard graft.

They're probably just pissing it away on coke, hookers and yachts anyway, the feckless b*stards.

Welfare's gone too far now if you ask me, we're encouraging a culture of dependency based on taxpayer's money, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!


top trolling cereal.
many wont read your hilarious link.
(see a few fellow lefties have bitten)

 


Kids,tired of being bothered by your pesky parents?
Then leave home, get a job & pay your own bills, while you still know everything.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 08 Jul 15 4.48pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Jul 2015 3.15pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 1.32pm

Working people should be made to go round to the homes of people on benefits and give them half of their wages to save them having to go to the benefits office.

Mind you, it would probably take more than one working person's wages to fund the £25,000 (equivalent of a taxable wage of £32,000) that Anjem Choudary receives from the taxation of working people. Terrorist apologist (or worse) Choudary, calls his Job Seekers Allowance, "Jihad Seeker's Allowance".

(Would advise those going to his £450,000 house to wear heavy scarves, in case someone tries to cut their heads off.)

Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Jul 2015 1.35pm)

You mean half my pre-tax income. If you're going to scrap VAT, National Insurance, fuel duty, booze duty, stamp duty, inheritance and income Tax, and instead call it 50%, I think quite a few people would be better off.


There are always cries of anguish when benefit reforms are proposed. Would you not agree that reform is required when people such as Choudary are taking the piss?

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 08 Jul 15 4.48pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Jul 2015 3.15pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 1.32pm

Working people should be made to go round to the homes of people on benefits and give them half of their wages to save them having to go to the benefits office.

Mind you, it would probably take more than one working person's wages to fund the £25,000 (equivalent of a taxable wage of £32,000) that Anjem Choudary receives from the taxation of working people. Terrorist apologist (or worse) Choudary, calls his Job Seekers Allowance, "Jihad Seeker's Allowance".

(Would advise those going to his £450,000 house to wear heavy scarves, in case someone tries to cut their heads off.)

Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Jul 2015 1.35pm)

You mean half my pre-tax income. If you're going to scrap VAT, National Insurance, fuel duty, booze duty, stamp duty, inheritance and income Tax, and instead call it 50%, I think quite a few people would be better off.


There are always cries of anguish when benefit reforms are proposed. Would you not agree that reform is required when people such as Choudary are taking the piss?

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 08 Jul 15 5.10pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

These posts are becoming very tedious.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View serial thriller's Profile serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 08 Jul 15 9.59pm Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

Quote Pawson Palace at 08 Jul 2015 2.44pm

"Corporate tax benefits: £44bn Of the 93 major tax reliefs provided by the Treasury, 27 are aimed at business. The largest amount was spent allowing businesses to write off billions spent on plants, machinery and equipment among other items."

This is complete guff. We have not actually given them anything. It's not like the big businesses were given a cash benefit this like you would pay benefits to someone claiming. Of course companies should be incentivised to innovate and be competitive. Businesses are allowed to write this back against their tax bill and in some instances R&D costs which are qualifying actually garner a tax credit which even then, will be nowhere near the level that is being talked about in the article. At no point is a cheque being written out.

"The construction industry gained more than £7bn in exemptions on new housing and land duty."

We all say there needs to more affordable new housing, so how do we encourage this? By making the market more attractive for business and investment. It's not exactly rocket science.

"Unlike motorists and the petrol levies they are charged, airlines do not pay tax on fuel – support worth about £8.5bn a year, according to MPs on parliament’s transport select committee. Train companies also enjoy lower duty on fuel."
....and if they were...who would pay for it?? That's right your trip to the Costa Del Sol will suddenly become more expensive. Is this really a benefit to business? Surely even a simpleton can understand the logic that if a product/service costs more to produce the price will almost certainly rise?

People harp on here about job creation, living wages etc. but how is that supposed to happen if firms aren't given support or benefits to spend money on innovation and to be competitive.

Yea, there are some tax dodging b******s companies out there but it's moronic to suggest that these payments don't serve a purpose.

In fact I'd wager that a lot of companies people work for on here have benefitted from these exact benefits. Britain needs to be business friendly, how else is growth going to be achieved?

Edited by Pawson Palace (08 Jul 2015 2.44pm)

We clearly live in a political era driven by a small-state ideology, but at the moment what we have is an awkward set up in which private sector relies on the state to continue to make profits, avoid bankruptcy and increasingly fund unethical practice which the government ostensibly claims it is tackling.

I'll take a couple of examples where I think your argument for supporting business doesn't really stand up. Private railways have been one of the biggest examples of the failure of the private sector to match the efficiency of the public sector. The East Coast Mainline was, until its privatisation earlier this year, the most cost effective rail line in the country, and also one of the last to be held in national ownership. Last year it brought in £23 million for the public. In contrast, private train companies not only charge the highest fares in Europe, they receive a state subsidy of around £4 billion per annum, while their shareholders have been receiving £200 million dividends. Even if you are adherent to someone like Hayek or Friedman, this is laughable, because these companies' inefficiencies are being sheltered by the taxpayer. These government subsidies aren't welcoming in job creators - in many cases the people working on the private rails are the same as who were previously doing so on the public ones - what they are doing is supporting the financial waste (the shareholders' dividends, for example) that the publically owned railways weren't.

What's basically happening is the taxpayer is taking on the financial failure of the companies while the company themselves are reaping in the profits, giving nothing back to the taxpayers using the service, who are paying more and more for it. Another example of this, and one you give yourself PP, is housing and infrastructure. If you think about it, £7 billion is enough for the state to build thousands of houses, so the question has to be why isn't the private sector doing so with such money? One of the biggest issues is material for house building has been monopolised, so the cost of bricks, cement, plaster etc has gone through the roof. Similarly, while property developers rush to London to build housing, nationwide targets of housebuilding are consistently missed, because private construction firms coming in to the country see no value in building outside of London. Pledges by these London housing firms, given billions by the taxpayer let's not forget, to build more affordable housing have consistently been waived, only around a quarter of houses in the capital being built are affordable.

Cameron says that the free market will not only lead our economic recovery, but improve morality, and he is quite clearly wrong. I've only given two examples of where it has lead to massive financial waste and unethical practices - don't get me started on healthcare - but it's endemic in almost all sectors from what I've seen. Adam Smith, so often lauded by free-marketeers, would be turning in his grave if he saw the role the state plays in financing the private sector. At least the budget today raised the minimum wage (very very slightly) so we won't be subsidising poverty pay so much, but these subsidies, coupled with the tax gains from companies in the article, highlight what a joke austerity really is.

 


If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View serial thriller's Profile serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 08 Jul 15 10.03pm Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 4.48pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Jul 2015 3.15pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 1.32pm

Working people should be made to go round to the homes of people on benefits and give them half of their wages to save them having to go to the benefits office.

Mind you, it would probably take more than one working person's wages to fund the £25,000 (equivalent of a taxable wage of £32,000) that Anjem Choudary receives from the taxation of working people. Terrorist apologist (or worse) Choudary, calls his Job Seekers Allowance, "Jihad Seeker's Allowance".

(Would advise those going to his £450,000 house to wear heavy scarves, in case someone tries to cut their heads off.)

Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Jul 2015 1.35pm)

You mean half my pre-tax income. If you're going to scrap VAT, National Insurance, fuel duty, booze duty, stamp duty, inheritance and income Tax, and instead call it 50%, I think quite a few people would be better off.


There are always cries of anguish when benefit reforms are proposed. Would you not agree that reform is required when people such as Choudary are taking the piss?


No system is perfect, and I'd much rather have a tiny number of people like Choudary than thousands of disabled people not being able to live dignified lives which the cuts to the ILF will be bringing in.

 


If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 09 Jul 15 7.57am

Quote serial thriller at 08 Jul 2015 10.03pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 4.48pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Jul 2015 3.15pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 1.32pm

Working people should be made to go round to the homes of people on benefits and give them half of their wages to save them having to go to the benefits office.

Mind you, it would probably take more than one working person's wages to fund the £25,000 (equivalent of a taxable wage of £32,000) that Anjem Choudary receives from the taxation of working people. Terrorist apologist (or worse) Choudary, calls his Job Seekers Allowance, "Jihad Seeker's Allowance".

(Would advise those going to his £450,000 house to wear heavy scarves, in case someone tries to cut their heads off.)

Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Jul 2015 1.35pm)

You mean half my pre-tax income. If you're going to scrap VAT, National Insurance, fuel duty, booze duty, stamp duty, inheritance and income Tax, and instead call it 50%, I think quite a few people would be better off.


There are always cries of anguish when benefit reforms are proposed. Would you not agree that reform is required when people such as Choudary are taking the piss?


No system is perfect, and I'd much rather have a tiny number of people like Choudary than thousands of disabled people not being able to live dignified lives which the cuts to the ILF will be bringing in.

As far as I know Choudary does not claim disability allowance, although I wouldn't be surprised if he did as he clearly plays the system, as do many other people.

Do you think there is room for reforms to counteract benefits abuse as carried out by the likes of peace-loving Choudary?

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View The Sash's Profile The Sash Flag Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 09 Jul 15 8.53am Send a Private Message to The Sash Add The Sash as a friend

Graniuad in anti-Tory spin shocker...whatever next.

The biggest 'story' of yesterday was the f*cking of anyone 18-25

 


As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 09 Jul 15 9.30am

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 4.48pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Jul 2015 3.15pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 1.32pm

Working people should be made to go round to the homes of people on benefits and give them half of their wages to save them having to go to the benefits office.

Mind you, it would probably take more than one working person's wages to fund the £25,000 (equivalent of a taxable wage of £32,000) that Anjem Choudary receives from the taxation of working people. Terrorist apologist (or worse) Choudary, calls his Job Seekers Allowance, "Jihad Seeker's Allowance".

(Would advise those going to his £450,000 house to wear heavy scarves, in case someone tries to cut their heads off.)

Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Jul 2015 1.35pm)

You mean half my pre-tax income. If you're going to scrap VAT, National Insurance, fuel duty, booze duty, stamp duty, inheritance and income Tax, and instead call it 50%, I think quite a few people would be better off.


There are always cries of anguish when benefit reforms are proposed. Would you not agree that reform is required when people such as Choudary are taking the piss?

No, its better that he takes the piss than other people suffer as a result of 'punishing' him. The mark of a civilized society is that it treats its treats those who disagree with it in the same way as those who support it.

Countries that persecute people based on their beliefs and ideologies, are what we're arguably fighting against.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View dingdong's Profile dingdong Flag bognor regis 09 Jul 15 9.49am Send a Private Message to dingdong Add dingdong as a friend

what about the royal family?never worked a day in there life, line in an over occupied council house in westminster and scrounge millions off the taxpayer each year.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View dingdong's Profile dingdong Flag bognor regis 09 Jul 15 9.50am Send a Private Message to dingdong Add dingdong as a friend

meant under occupied

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 09 Jul 15 10.28am

Did you also mean 'their' and 'live in'. Do try to speak the Queen's English.

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Scroungers