Tax Avoiders Alliance shoot themself in foot

Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2

Tax Avoiders Alliance shoot themself in foot
Topic Started: Dec 22 2014, 09:53 AM (403 Views)
papasmurf	Dec 22 2014, 09:53 AM Post #1
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	An excellent bit of research by the Tax Avoiders Alliance (TaxPayer's Alliance,) which is carrying a message I suspect they did not intend:- http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/new_research_tax_and_benefit_distribution Taxes •The poorest households paid an average of 47 per cent of their gross income in taxes, the highest percentage of any income group



Tytoalba	Dec 22 2014, 12:02 PM Post #2
Senior Member Posts: 7,586 Group: Members Member #36 Joined: Jun 29, 2014	papasmurf Dec 22 2014, 09:53 AM An excellent bit of research by the Tax Avoiders Alliance (TaxPayer's Alliance,) which is carrying a message I suspect they did not intend:- http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/new_research_tax_and_benefit_distribution Taxes •The poorest households paid an average of 47 per cent of their gross income in taxes, the highest percentage of any income group Everyone should pay the same tax for the services they want or need, reduced according to their immediate means. The loading should be on purchase tax, meaning that the more disposable income you spend, the more tax you pay overall. I do like to be fair and even handed, but then I'm not a bleeding hearted liberal minded idealistic left wing socialist, who always wants others to pay their personal way in life. Now don't go out and spend more on Christmas than you can afford, or you will be regretting it for weeks to come. If you do , remember that it was your own fault and no one else's, and that you were responsible for your own actions. It wont be the governments fault.



RJD	Dec 22 2014, 01:43 PM Post #3
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Dec 22 2014, 09:53 AM An excellent bit of research by the Tax Avoiders Alliance (TaxPayer's Alliance,) which is carrying a message I suspect they did not intend:- http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/new_research_tax_and_benefit_distribution Taxes •The poorest households paid an average of 47 per cent of their gross income in taxes, the highest percentage of any income group They did intend to highlight the point, but it would also have been illuminating if you had explained how such numbers are comprised.



papasmurf	Dec 22 2014, 02:01 PM Post #4
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 22 2014, 01:43 PM They did intend to highlight the point, but it would also have been illuminating if you had explained how such numbers are comprised. Why do I have to explain it RJD. It is Tax Avoiders Alliance research not mine. You can check for yourself, just scroll through it there are plenty of easy graphics and source references:- https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/5133/attachments/original/1419248480/taxdistribution.pdf?1419248480



RJD	Dec 22 2014, 04:41 PM Post #5
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Dec 22 2014, 02:01 PM RJD Dec 22 2014, 01:43 PM They did intend to highlight the point, but it would also have been illuminating if you had explained how such numbers are comprised. Why do I have to explain it RJD. It is Tax Avoiders Alliance research not mine. You can check for yourself, just scroll through it there are plenty of easy graphics and source references:- https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/5133/attachments/original/1419248480/taxdistribution.pdf?1419248480 I know I received a notification when it was published, but it was your point that they shot themselves in the foot when they didn't. You also fail to delve into the details and ask why is it that the lower income groups pay so much tax, is it payroll taxes or purchase?



papasmurf	Dec 22 2014, 05:07 PM Post #6
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 22 2014, 04:41 PM it was your point that they shot themselves in the foot when they didn't. They did RJD it is not my problem you can't see it.



Steve K	Dec 22 2014, 07:50 PM Post #7
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Dec 22 2014, 09:53 AM An excellent bit of research by the Tax Avoiders Alliance (TaxPayer's Alliance,) which is carrying a message I suspect they did not intend:- http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/new_research_tax_and_benefit_distribution Taxes •The poorest households paid an average of 47 per cent of their gross income in taxes, the highest percentage of any income group Looks bad but I think you will find that is the gross and not the net position Most studies suggest those poorest groups receive more in benefits than they pay in tax whereas the reverse is true for the top quartile. As Tigger says we should be taxing purchasing of anything other than true necessities.



papasmurf	Dec 22 2014, 07:59 PM Post #8
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Steve K Dec 22 2014, 07:50 PM . As Tigger says we should be taxing purchasing of anything other than true necessities. I suggest you both need to read the Tax Avoiders Alliance research. Doing what you both think is a good idea turns out not to be. I would also like to know what a true necessity is. Given that a mobile phone and internet access are deemed necessities for benefit claimants according to Iain Duncan Smith.



AndyK	Dec 22 2014, 09:46 PM Post #9
Senior Member Posts: 2,474 Group: Members Member #69 Joined: Aug 11, 2014	They are incorrect about VAT, an increase in VAT should not hit the poor as long as benefits are adjusted in line with any VAT increase.



papasmurf	Dec 22 2014, 09:51 PM Post #10
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	AndyK Dec 22 2014, 09:46 PM They are incorrect about VAT, an increase in VAT should not hit the poor as long as benefits are adjusted in line with any VAT increase. Benefits adjusted in line with any VAT increase?



Tigger	Dec 22 2014, 09:52 PM Post #11
Senior Member Posts: 20,106 Group: Members Member #18 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	AndyK Dec 22 2014, 09:46 PM They are incorrect about VAT, an increase in VAT should not hit the poor as long as benefits are adjusted in line with any VAT increase. Rather self defeating as the state pays the tax it imposes back to itself! Better off putting tax on assets rather than work that way you encourage honest toil and discourage lazy and worthless speculation on those fixed assets which produce nothing and encourage rent seeking which falls into the socially useless category.



AndyK	Dec 22 2014, 10:08 PM Post #12
Senior Member Posts: 2,474 Group: Members Member #69 Joined: Aug 11, 2014	Tigger Dec 22 2014, 09:52 PM AndyK Dec 22 2014, 09:46 PM They are incorrect about VAT, an increase in VAT should not hit the poor as long as benefits are adjusted in line with any VAT increase. Rather self defeating as the state pays the tax it imposes back to itself! Better off putting tax on assets rather than work that way you encourage honest toil and discourage lazy and worthless speculation on those fixed assets which produce nothing and encourage rent seeking which falls into the socially useless category. No because the rich will get caught on their new iphones and BMW's.



AndyK	Dec 23 2014, 08:33 AM Post #13
Senior Member Posts: 2,474 Group: Members Member #69 Joined: Aug 11, 2014	papasmurf Dec 22 2014, 09:51 PM AndyK Dec 22 2014, 09:46 PM They are incorrect about VAT, an increase in VAT should not hit the poor as long as benefits are adjusted in line with any VAT increase. Benefits adjusted in line with any VAT increase? The fact that this government is unlikely to compensate for higher VAT does not alter the fact that they could do and therefore there is no idealogical reason why VAT could not be used as a tax on wealth. The VAT rate in Sweden in 25% and nobody accuses them of overtaxing the poor, its the net effect thats important. Edited by AndyK, Dec 23 2014, 08:34 AM.



Steve K	Dec 23 2014, 09:32 AM Post #14
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	AndyK Dec 23 2014, 08:33 AM The fact that this government is unlikely to compensate for higher VAT does not alter the fact that they could do and therefore there is no idealogical reason why VAT could not be used as a tax on wealth. The VAT rate in Sweden in 25% and nobody accuses them of overtaxing the poor, its the net effect thats important. Yep, VAT does not have to be a regressive tax. One of the reasons it is said to be so is the preponderance of some unemployed people to buy convenience food. Like they don't have time to peel potatoes and carrots or cook cheap meat for longer. When I was dirt poor that's what I did. Raising VAT to fund lower taxes on employment is the single most effective thing we could actually do to redistribute wealth.



papasmurf	Dec 23 2014, 09:38 AM Post #15
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	AndyK Dec 23 2014, 08:33 AM The VAT rate in Sweden in 25% and nobody accuses them of overtaxing the poor, its the net effect thats important. That is because Sweden does not have many poor:- http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_295020.pdf 5.1% of people in the UK were considered to be experiencing severe material deprivation, In contrast, only 1.2% of the populations of Sweden and Luxembourg are considered to be severely materially deprived.



ACH1967	Dec 23 2014, 10:19 AM Post #16
Senior Member Posts: 4,226 Group: Members Member #56 Joined: Jul 24, 2014	Ahh once again cherry picked figures. You chose the worse one to cherry pick too because of the graphs I checked this was the one where we actually do better than Germany and France. For the others we were worse. As far as I am concerned it is reasonable to compare ourselves to France and Germany to see how we do, not Luxembourg. But hey you do what you like it's your conscience. In your fervour to paint the UK as terrible you really did pick the worst graph. On this one we do quite well, way below the EU average. I'll summarise for those interested in the truth and too busy to scan the report. UK...could do better and "Percentage of people aged under 60 living in households with low work intensity by country: 2011" the area for most concern.



Steve K	Dec 23 2014, 10:29 AM Post #17
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Dec 23 2014, 09:38 AM AndyK Dec 23 2014, 08:33 AM The VAT rate in Sweden in 25% and nobody accuses them of overtaxing the poor, its the net effect thats important. That is because Sweden does not have many poor:- http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_295020.pdf 5.1% of people in the UK were considered to be experiencing severe material deprivation, In contrast, only 1.2% of the populations of Sweden and Luxembourg are considered to be severely materially deprived. You do realise that connection shows that higher VAT protects employment and the poor don't you?



papasmurf	Dec 23 2014, 10:43 AM Post #18
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Steve K Dec 23 2014, 10:29 AM You do realise that connection shows that higher VAT protects employment and the poor don't you? It shows nothing of the kind, Sweden does not have Iain Duncan Smith in charge of benefits.



AndyK	Dec 23 2014, 10:48 AM Post #19
Senior Member Posts: 2,474 Group: Members Member #69 Joined: Aug 11, 2014	papasmurf Dec 23 2014, 10:43 AM Steve K Dec 23 2014, 10:29 AM You do realise that connection shows that higher VAT protects employment and the poor don't you? It shows nothing of the kind, Sweden does not have Iain Duncan Smith in charge of benefits. That's right, so they have higher benefits paid for by higher VAT, therefore they have less poor people.



Tigger	Dec 23 2014, 10:59 AM Post #20
Senior Member Posts: 20,106 Group: Members Member #18 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Steve K Dec 23 2014, 10:29 AM papasmurf Dec 23 2014, 09:38 AM AndyK Dec 23 2014, 08:33 AM The VAT rate in Sweden in 25% and nobody accuses them of overtaxing the poor, its the net effect thats important. That is because Sweden does not have many poor:- http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_295020.pdf 5.1% of people in the UK were considered to be experiencing severe material deprivation, In contrast, only 1.2% of the populations of Sweden and Luxembourg are considered to be severely materially deprived. You do realise that connection shows that higher VAT protects employment and the poor don't you? Not entirely sure about that, it's surprising what a creative accountant can shove into VAT refund territory if the need arises, and I'm fairly certain that the average wage slave does not employ the services of an accountant.



papasmurf	Dec 23 2014, 11:00 AM Post #21
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	AndyK Dec 23 2014, 10:48 AM That's right, so they have higher benefits paid for by higher VAT, therefore they have less poor people. That is far too simplistic, and I suspect you know that.



Tytoalba	Dec 23 2014, 11:05 AM Post #22
Senior Member Posts: 7,586 Group: Members Member #36 Joined: Jun 29, 2014	AndyK Dec 23 2014, 10:48 AM papasmurf Dec 23 2014, 10:43 AM Steve K Dec 23 2014, 10:29 AM You do realise that connection shows that higher VAT protects employment and the poor don't you? It shows nothing of the kind, Sweden does not have Iain Duncan Smith in charge of benefits. That's right, so they have higher benefits paid for by higher VAT, therefore they have less poor people. The left do like to find means of increasing taxation in one way or another. I expect their ideal would be for all peoples money to be taken off them and then they get their money handed out equally by the state with the remainder kept by the state. China had a scheme where every one wore the same clothing all the time, and so on. I believe in the freedom of people to earn what they can , how they can, and as much as they can, in any legal way, and keep their own money for their own needs, and use it as they wish. Governments should aim to tax as little as possible, not to take as much as possible, let people run their own lives as freely as possible, not to be controlled by the state ,or by other people at every turn. Tax freedom day is coming around later every year. Remember that the more disposable income we have the more likely we are to donate to charities and to help the poorer in our societies.



papasmurf	Dec 23 2014, 11:07 AM Post #23
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Tytoalba Dec 23 2014, 11:05 AM The left do like to find means of increasing taxation in one way or another. I expect their ideal would be for all peoples money to be taken off them and then they get their money handed out equally by the state with the remainder kept by the state. That is beyond ridiculous.



Tigger	Dec 23 2014, 11:09 AM Post #24
Senior Member Posts: 20,106 Group: Members Member #18 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Tytoalba Dec 23 2014, 11:05 AM AndyK Dec 23 2014, 10:48 AM papasmurf Dec 23 2014, 10:43 AM Steve K Dec 23 2014, 10:29 AM You do realise that connection shows that higher VAT protects employment and the poor don't you? It shows nothing of the kind, Sweden does not have Iain Duncan Smith in charge of benefits. That's right, so they have higher benefits paid for by higher VAT, therefore they have less poor people. The left do like to find means of increasing taxation in one way or another. I expect their ideal would be for all peoples money to be taken off them and then they get their money handed out equally by the state with the remainder kept by the state. China had a scheme where every one wore the same clothing all the time, and so on. I believe in the freedom of people to earn what they can , how they can, and as much as they can, in any legal way, and keep their own money for their own needs, and use it as they wish. Governments should aim to tax as little as possible, not to take as much as possible, let people run their own lives as freely as possible, not to be controlled by the state ,or by other people at every turn. Tax freedom day is coming around later every year. Remember that the more disposable income we have the more likely we are to donate to charities and to help the poorer in our societies. ^ Merry Christmas and a happy new year, 1901 style!



Steve K	Dec 23 2014, 11:11 AM Post #25
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Dec 23 2014, 11:07 AM Tytoalba Dec 23 2014, 11:05 AM The left do like to find means of increasing taxation in one way or another. I expect their ideal would be for all peoples money to be taken off them and then they get their money handed out equally by the state with the remainder kept by the state. That is beyond ridiculous. Well yes which is why when the extreme left position such or near such thoughts they need to be relentlessly opposed



papasmurf	Dec 23 2014, 11:22 AM Post #26
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Steve K Dec 23 2014, 11:11 AM Well yes which is why when the extreme left position such or near such thoughts they need to be relentlessly opposed As a matter of fact what you described is closer to Buddhism than any political doctrine. It is the sheer nastiness and complete lack of compassion of the Tories that makes them totally unfit for public office. (All that makes me is anti-Tory, not anti right wing per se.)



ACH1967	Dec 23 2014, 11:31 AM Post #27
Senior Member Posts: 4,226 Group: Members Member #56 Joined: Jul 24, 2014	The tax freedom day is a fair point. If this is getting longer and longer each year then those working are paying more and more. Are they getting more and more in return?



Affa	Dec 23 2014, 11:34 AM Post #28
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	'The 'Left' desire to rob (tax) the rich and make everybody poor' 'Conservatives are the party of business and the rich. They oppress the working class, increase poverty, unemployment, and benefit dependency' Are either of these true?



papasmurf	Dec 23 2014, 11:41 AM Post #29
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa Dec 23 2014, 11:34 AM 'The 'Left' desire to rob (tax) the rich and make everybody poor' 'Conservatives are the party of business and the rich. They oppress the working class, increase poverty, unemployment, and benefit dependency' Are either of these true? The latter is worrying close to the reality.



Affa	Dec 23 2014, 11:46 AM Post #30
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	papasmurf Dec 23 2014, 11:41 AM Affa Dec 23 2014, 11:34 AM 'The 'Left' desire to rob (tax) the rich and make everybody poor' 'Conservatives are the party of business and the rich. They oppress the working class, increase poverty, unemployment, and benefit dependency' Are either of these true? The latter is worrying close to the reality. Well; the first has never happened, the second has .........



papasmurf	Dec 23 2014, 11:56 AM Post #31
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa Dec 23 2014, 11:46 AM Well; the first has never happened, the second has ......... Quite, with a slight shift from out of work welfare dependency to in work welfare dependency, and far too many people dropping through the safety net.



ACH1967	Dec 23 2014, 12:04 PM Post #32
Senior Member Posts: 4,226 Group: Members Member #56 Joined: Jul 24, 2014	papasmurf Dec 23 2014, 11:56 AM Affa Dec 23 2014, 11:46 AM Well; the first has never happened, the second has ......... Quite, with a slight shift from out of work welfare dependency to in work welfare dependency, and far too many people dropping through the safety net. Care to quantify and support "far too many are droping through the net?"



papasmurf	Dec 23 2014, 12:14 PM Post #33
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ACH1967 Dec 23 2014, 12:04 PM Care to quantify and support "far too many are droping through the net?" For a start the DWP has no idea what has happened to 22% of those found "fit for work" at a work capability assessment because they are not on another benefit or employed. 22% over the last over four and a half years is a lot of people. Basically there is a very large hole in the data between off flows off of benefits, due to various reasons, and on flows to other data sets.



RJD	Dec 23 2014, 03:49 PM Post #34
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Dec 23 2014, 11:22 AM Steve K Dec 23 2014, 11:11 AM Well yes which is why when the extreme left position such or near such thoughts they need to be relentlessly opposed As a matter of fact what you described is closer to Buddhism than any political doctrine. It is the sheer nastiness and complete lack of compassion of the Tories that makes them totally unfit for public office. (All that makes me is anti-Tory, not anti right wing per se.) But your opinions are based on emotion rather than reason. In a democratic society the Gov. must do it's best for the majority and not optimise for a minority. The DWP claim that the recent reforms will produce more that gain than those that lose out from structural changes. Are you saying that such a principle is wrong? The only ones who are not fit to govern are the nasty bunch who wish to shackle individuals to a life of permanent benefits and totally ignore the requirements of job creation. At the end of the day Gov. must prioritise job creation as this is by far the best social salve and on that metric alone you cannot castigate this Gov. for doing nothing. That said it can do more, but that requires a reduction in taxes and associated reduction in expenditure. I accuse you and the rest of the left of ignoring he requirements of the economy for forging new jobs. You put welfare ahead of job creation, whereas, I think the latter is of a higher import.



papasmurf	Dec 23 2014, 04:03 PM Post #35
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 23 2014, 03:49 PM But your opinions are based on emotion rather than reason. They are based on fact, RJD, the treatment of the poor and disadvantaged by the current government is a disgrace:- Just the latest example out of many thousands. The Dr Mengele clone who decided this man is fit for work should be struck off:- http://www.littlehamptongazette.co.uk/news/local/disabled-littlehampton-man-s-fury-after-his-benefits-are-cut-1-6483759 December 22 2014 A WHEELCHAIR-BOUND man from Littlehampton has been left ‘devastated’ after the Government axed his disability allowances just days before Christmas. Jon Ball, of The Cape, has suffered from Klinefelter’s syndrome all his life. It’s a condition which has left him in constant pain and in need of heavy doses of medication. However, this month, the Department for Works and Pensions (DWP), which provides his incapacity benefit and disability allowance, said he was no longer eligible for support Jon, 59, said: “When that news came through, it was devastating to say the least. “It’s something that didn’t make any sense to me. I was still in a wheelchair and couldn’t do anything about it. “Apparently, I’m fit for work, which is a total joke.” Mr Ball is currently unemployed due to his illness. However, he had previously worked as a delivery driver and car valet among other jobs. He explained that due to his condition, he was forced to take dozens of pain relief and muscle relaxant tablets a day just to get by. However, he tries to live as independently as possible. “I have had the condition all my life but it only came to a head in 1990 when I became paraplegic,” he said. “That put me in a wheelchair. “The condition means I have constant pain in my legs, back, joints muscles and skin. “Imagine when you are hit and given a numb leg. Well, the pain that comes in after that is what I have 24-7. “If I’m not in bed, I have to crawl upstairs to it. So I’m normally just sat in my wheelchair.” In July, Mr Ball took part in an assessment test at Atos Healthcare, in Brighton, to see whether he still qualified for his allowances. However, after months of waiting, the news was broken to him earlier this month that he would be losing his £600 per month support. He said: “The impact on me is massive. I’m trying to run a house but I can’t because I have no money coming in and my last payment was today (Friday).” A spokesman from the DWP stood by the move and explained the decision on whether someone was well enough to work was taken following a ‘thorough independent assessment’, and ‘after consideration of all the supporting medical evidence ‘ of a GP or a medical specialist. “The work capability assessment is designed to look at what someone can do with the right support - rather than just writing people off on sickness benefits as happened in the past,” he said. “Everyone is entitled to request a reconsideration on a decision made on their claim. “However, Mr Ball has not asked us to do this.”



RJD	Dec 23 2014, 04:07 PM Post #36
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Mr Smurf that is not evidence that will stand up in Court and prove your claims. The Courts require a much higher standard than that which you accept as proof. When did IDS lie to the HofC? That is the killer question, because if he did and you can prove such then his career is over.



papasmurf	Dec 23 2014, 04:35 PM Post #37
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 23 2014, 04:07 PM Mr Smurf that is not evidence that will stand up in Court and prove your claims. RJD, you really do NOT read my references, even when I post ones from the Statistical Authority telling Iain Duncan Smith in writing on their website with data references he is telling lies and proving it.



RJD	Dec 23 2014, 04:56 PM Post #38
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Dec 23 2014, 04:35 PM RJD Dec 23 2014, 04:07 PM Mr Smurf that is not evidence that will stand up in Court and prove your claims. RJD, you really do NOT read my references, even when I post ones from the Statistical Authority telling Iain Duncan Smith in writing on their website with data references he is telling lies and proving it. I am reading that which you write here. No I will not follow any of your links until first I am persuaded they as not the usual BS. You made the claim, now provide the proof. No I do not wish to do the forensic work for you as you must have already done this in order to come to such a conclusion. Me thinks.



papasmurf	Dec 23 2014, 06:21 PM Post #39
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 23 2014, 04:56 PM I am reading that which you write here. No I will not follow any of your links until first I am persuaded they as not the usual BS. RJD just to make it easy for you I posted not only the link to the Statistics Authority but copied and pasted the content into the forum. Yet still you don't read it.



Tytoalba	Dec 23 2014, 11:52 PM Post #40
Senior Member Posts: 7,586 Group: Members Member #36 Joined: Jun 29, 2014	Tigger Dec 23 2014, 11:09 AM Tytoalba Dec 23 2014, 11:05 AM AndyK Dec 23 2014, 10:48 AM papasmurf Dec 23 2014, 10:43 AM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep That's right, so they have higher benefits paid for by higher VAT, therefore they have less poor people. The left do like to find means of increasing taxation in one way or another. I expect their ideal would be for all peoples money to be taken off them and then they get their money handed out equally by the state with the remainder kept by the state. China had a scheme where every one wore the same clothing all the time, and so on. I believe in the freedom of people to earn what they can , how they can, and as much as they can, in any legal way, and keep their own money for their own needs, and use it as they wish. Governments should aim to tax as little as possible, not to take as much as possible, let people run their own lives as freely as possible, not to be controlled by the state ,or by other people at every turn. Tax freedom day is coming around later every year. Remember that the more disposable income we have the more likely we are to donate to charities and to help the poorer in our societies. ^ Merry Christmas and a happy new year, 1901 style! And what style was that? A monocultural society, with the same religious beliefs celebrating Christmas in the way it is meant to be celebrated? Families were unified, and living amongst their own with single parents being a rarity Happiness cannot be gained from money alone. You must be very ancient to remember it so well.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Our users say it best: "A great way to make a forums for free and it is very reliable as well. Thank you Zetaboards." Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2