Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

6538

What The Point Of Paying In To A Public Safety Net....

Recommended Posts

Okay. Closed my business down last year as a result of Gordons "prudent" management of the economy. Have worked and contributed since I was 16 and have been supporting my self financially for the past year or so. I have never claimed a penny in benefits from the state.

Got sick of spending money with nowt coming in so I decided I was probably entitled to something back of what I'd paid in for the past two plus decades. On enquiring with the CAB as to what I may be entitled to claim to tide me over till I find something the answer came back as fvck all - for want of a better phrase. Other half is earning so I don't qualify for anything so have to spend my way through my savings - savings I've paid tax on, obviously. Even when they're gone I'll still be entitled to sod all.

So, I have to ask. What the fvck is the point of being honest and bothering to have a job and pay into the system? If I'd just been some feckless waster chav who had sh1t loads of dependents I'd be getting hand outs left right and centre. If I'd been a trouble maker in my youth I'd probably have been given free training courses at the drop of a hat. My mistake obviously was going into work as soon as I could to support my self and earn tax for the government, rather than taking the p1ss out of the system.

I'll now go out of my way to fiddle every penny out of the tax mans hand that I possibly can. Fvck 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay. Closed my business down last year as a result of Gordons "prudent" management of the economy. Have worked and contributed since I was 16 and have been supporting my self financially for the past year or so. I have never claimed a penny in benefits from the state.

Got sick of spending money with nowt coming in so I decided I was probably entitled to something back of what I'd paid in for the past two plus decades. On enquiring with the CAB as to what I may be entitled to claim to tide me over till I find something the answer came back as fvck all - for want of a better phrase. Other half is earning so I don't qualify for anything so have to spend my way through my savings - savings I've paid tax on, obviously. Even when they're gone I'll still be entitled to sod all.

So, I have to ask. What the fvck is the point of being honest and bothering to have a job and pay into the system? If I'd just been some feckless waster chav who had sh1t loads of dependents I'd be getting hand outs left right and centre. If I'd been a trouble maker in my youth I'd probably have been given free training courses at the drop of a hat. My mistake obviously was going into work as soon as I could to support my self and earn tax for the government, rather than taking the p1ss out of the system.

I'll now go out of my way to fiddle every penny out of the tax mans hand that I possibly can. Fvck 'em.

Sorry for you. Wish you all the best.

A couple of decades of hard work and tax paid & you're entitled to nothing. Had you spent those decades in bludging indolence you'd have entitlements & benefits coming out of your ears. A great advertisement for our system!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your OH is earning more than £100 a week you will get no contributions based JSA; they will pay your stamp though, if you think it's worth the humilliation of signing on and being questioned by a bunch of cretins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your OH is earning more than £100 a week you will get no contributions based JSA; they will pay your stamp though, if you think it's worth the humilliation of signing on and being questioned by a bunch of cretins.

Direct quote from DWP:

"If your partner or civil partner works 24 hours or more a week on average, you can't usually get income-based JSA (contribution-based JSA isn't affected)."

Let me repeat that: contribution-based JSA is not affected by your partner's income. Other benefits are but without any idea what your other half is earning I couldn't tell you whether you'd be entitled, 6568.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CAB are IMH experience as a professional in practice frequently called upon to assist with people's financial problems, about as much good as a chocolate teapot.

Class 2 (i.e. self-employed NIC payments at the flat rate) do not qualify you to JSA.

Quote:"Contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance

Jobcentre Plus can pay this for up to 182 days. It’s based on how much National Insurance you have paid in the last two tax years. Generally, self-employed contributions will not help you qualify for contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance."

Source: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBen...ork/DG_10018757

More info here: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categori...nd-unemployment

The critical word here is "Generally".

Without knowing (And I don't wish to know) how much your spouse earns, then it is impossible to further advise you on specifics.

I do suggest, however, that you :

1. Make a claim for JSA:

2. Make a claim for Housing Benefit (Council Tax and Mortgage Interest):

They may well be turned down, but make the claim in any case.

If you have children then on reduced income any Child Tax Credits may well increase.

Also evaluate Tax Credits:

here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/Taxcredits/

Still, I do feel for your anger, as a many long year ripped off self employed person and also company director.

We must not worry!

We're saved from gloom and depression: according to the Instiute of Chartered Accounts Chef Exec Michael Iza!

The recession is over..................

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business...im-1776536.html

:lol::lol::lol:

So that is probably why bankruptcies and corporate insolvencies are increasing so rapidly: and unemployment is headed towards the three million mark and rising!

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

If anyone wonders precisely why this nation state is in such a bloody awful mess, then look nor further: with idiots like this advising government, auditing banks and advising business then it's no bleeding wonder is it?

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear this gripe a lot from people. The answer to your question is that you pay into the system for the whole of the system. ie you are part and parcel of the whole system. Let me put this another way....

Imagine you live in a country that runs a different system eg India. Right so chances are your family had no health care provision, you wouldn't have been born in a hospital, but most likely in a squalid hut somewhere. You would have been about 15 -20 times more likely to die than had you been born in the UK. But as I assume that you <i>were</i> born in the UK and therefore you were born in a relatively safe medical environment with greatly reduced infant mortality, the cost of which was provided gratis to you ie you have just been born and you are taking massively from a system that you have not yet contributed to.

Let's go back to India, were you lucky enought to have survived birth getting to 5 years of age would be tricky, you would be significantly more likely to die than had you been born in the UK. You would have had no immunization against a lot of the preventable diseases that can kill or seriously impair an infant. Were you lucky enough to get to 5 years of age you would be subject to even more hazards as the threat to you from a poor diet (your parents could not afford the food you needed) or the lack of sanitation and clean water meant that you would be prone to the sort of illenesses that could cliam your young life at any time. A corresponding child born in the Uk however would have had a series of innoculations and immunizations organized and administered by a mixture of direct and indirect health workers, all of whom have to be paid. They would be receiving expensive drugs and treatment from them, again for free and they are still at least 10 years away from earning their first pay check. But it doesn't stop there, the systems that keep them safe,the water and sewerage systems all cost money to maintain, all of which they are dependent on for a safe existence. Not too mention the child benefit their parents receive - however meagre - in order to help provide for the child. All of this received for free,free,FREE !

Let's go back to India again. That child of 5, they won't go to school. There is no state school. Schools cost money and like most people in India, they can't afford to send their child. So they are sent out to work from as young as 4 and 5 , the work is hard often dangerous, pays little, working in conditions that are savage and for hours that are long and underpaid. The situation is deletrious enough for their young health, but even if they survive this , they are already laying down the foundations for a much reduced lifespan, significantly lower than their British counterpart.

Let's look at that British child again. At 5 they are enrolled for free in a state school, they receive, teaching and equipment to study, they receive it in a safe environment and may also be entitled to receive other benefits including, free clothing and meals. This care will be provided completely for free (the child pays nothing), it will last for 11 years or longer if they choose. All the systems that need to be in place, teachers, auxillary workers, dinner ladies, janitors, maintenace staff, support staff, the buildings, the gas, the water, the electricity (did i mention the free dental care and the increased child benefit ?) the child pays for none of this, it is all given for free.

Ok so let's look at that school leaving age. In the UK if the child worked hard and had ability they were fortunate enoughy to be born into a country that for all intents and purposes is a meritocracy, with a keen brain and plenty of hard work, the sky is potentially the limit. They could with a lot of hard work have a career in a multitude of fields that could be both financially rewarding and enjoyable and even if they were not that fortunate, with hard work alone they could still enjoy a relatively comfortable life'. Let's go back to India, the average child of 16 - 18 has already been working for over 10 years, their ability or intelligence is irrelevant they are condemned to do the job they are currently doing because there is simply no framework for which they could rise out of there current situation. They were born poor , they will live lives where they have few opportunities and they will die poor many years before there British counterparts.

Let's go back to that school leaver in the UK again. Assuming the very best scenario that they start work at 16 and start paying into the system from this point, how long do you think it would take for their contributions to even begin to cover the resources they have consumed for free up to this point ? 3 years ? 5 years ? try 20 - 30 years. And that's not even taking into account the chunk of their taxes and NI that go into maintaining systems and facilities that they are <b>currently</b> using, roads, doctors surgeries, emergency services etc etc. And if they should ever become seriously ill or have an accident , the cost of their care will never be recovered in their lifetime of paying tax . And this equation does not even begin to cover some of the later in life expenses such as hip replacements and pension contributions which they will expect as their "right".

So when you say "what is the point of paying" as if you have nobly paid so much and received so little, you are just one more of the army of dunderheads that understands little of society and what it costs to live in a civilised one.

Truly, you do not realize how fortunate you are and that this sytem that you seem to despise so much - although containing many flaws - has never the less provided you with opportunities (on so many different levels) that probably a full 2/3rds of the world's populations will probably never get to see.

It's a level of ignorance of the real world, that I find frankly grotesque.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When i left school at 18 i went of JSA for a while. Never declared savings, never had a problem. I always thought data protection means you actually have to tell them of savings, they cant go find out. That was nearly8 years ago though, probably Facist labours bought in some new snooping laws since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hear this gripe a lot from people. The answer to your question is that you pay into the system for the whole of the system. ie you are part and parcel of the whole system. Let me put this another way....

Imagine you live in a country that runs a different system eg India. Right so chances are your family had no health care provision, you wouldn't have been born in a hospital, but most likely in a squalid hut somewhere. You would have been about 15 -20 times more likely to die than had you been born in the UK. But as I assume that you <i>were</i> born in the UK and therefore you were born in a relatively safe medical environment with greatly reduced infant mortality, the cost of which was provided gratis to you ie you have just been born and you are taking massively from a system that you have not yet contributed to.

Let's go back to India, were you lucky enought to have survived birth getting to 5 years of age would be tricky, you would be significantly more likely to die than had you been born in the UK. You would have had no immunization against a lot of the preventable diseases that can kill or seriously impair an infant. Were you lucky enough to get to 5 years of age you would be subject to even more hazards as the threat to you from a poor diet (your parents could not afford the food you needed) or the lack of sanitation and clean water meant that you would be prone to the sort of illenesses that could cliam your young life at any time. A corresponding child born in the Uk however would have had a series of innoculations and immunizations organized and administered by a mixture of direct and indirect health workers, all of whom have to be paid. They would be receiving expensive drugs and treatment from them, again for free and they are still at least 10 years away from earning their first pay check. But it doesn't stop there, the systems that keep them safe,the water and sewerage systems all cost money to maintain, all of which they are dependent on for a safe existence. Not too mention the child benefit their parents receive - however meagre - in order to help provide for the child. All of this received for free,free,FREE !

Let's go back to India again. That child of 5, they won't go to school. There is no state school. Schools cost money and like most people in India, they can't afford to send their child. So they are sent out to work from as young as 4 and 5 , the work is hard often dangerous, pays little, working in conditions that are savage and for hours that are long and underpaid. The situation is deletrious enough for their young health, but even if they survive this , they are already laying down the foundations for a much reduced lifespan, significantly lower than their British counterpart.

Let's look at that British child again. At 5 they are enrolled for free in a state school, they receive, teaching and equipment to study, they receive it in a safe environment and may also be entitled to receive other benefits including, free clothing and meals. This care will be provided completely for free (the child pays nothing), it will last for 11 years or longer if they choose. All the systems that need to be in place, teachers, auxillary workers, dinner ladies, janitors, maintenace staff, support staff, the buildings, the gas, the water, the electricity (did i mention the free dental care and the increased child benefit ?) the child pays for none of this, it is all given for free.

Ok so let's look at that school leaving age. In the UK if the child worked hard and had ability they were fortunate enoughy to be born into a country that for all intents and purposes is a meritocracy, with a keen brain and plenty of hard work, the sky is potentially the limit. They could with a lot of hard work have a career in a multitude of fields that could be both financially rewarding and enjoyable and even if they were not that fortunate, with hard work alone they could still enjoy a relatively comfortable life'. Let's go back to India, the average child of 16 - 18 has already been working for over 10 years, their ability or intelligence is irrelevant they are condemned to do the job they are currently doing because there is simply no framework for which they could rise out of there current situation. They were born poor , they will live lives where they have few opportunities and they will die poor many years before there British counterparts.

Let's go back to that school leaver in the UK again. Assuming the very best scenario that they start work at 16 and start paying into the system from this point, how long do you think it would take for their contributions to even begin to cover the resources they have consumed for free up to this point ? 3 years ? 5 years ? try 20 - 30 years. And that's not even taking into account the chunk of their taxes and NI that go into maintaining systems and facilities that they are <b>currently</b> using, roads, doctors surgeries, emergency services etc etc. And if they should ever become seriously ill or have an accident , the cost of their care will never be recovered in their lifetime of paying tax . And this equation does not even begin to cover some of the later in life expenses such as hip replacements and pension contributions which they will expect as their "right".

So when you say "what is the point of paying" as if you have nobly paid so much and received so little, you are just one more of the army of dunderheads that understands little of society and what it costs to live in a civilised one.

Truly, you do not realize how fortunate you are and that this sytem that you seem to despise so much - although containing many flaws - has never the less provided you with opportunities (on so many different levels) that probably a full 2/3rds of the world's populations will probably never get to see.

It's a level of ignorance of the real world, that I find frankly grotesque.....

Rousing words Ken.

Afraid to say you obviously know too little about Self Employment and its taxation.

The Self Employed pay not only a set weekly (Monthly by Direct Debit) flat sum fof Class Two NIC: they are then further taxed under what is called Class IV NIC on profits.

For which they receive no benefit whatsoever.

Furthermore, despite Class IV mirroring SERPS contributions, no additional pension is paid on retirement: just the flat rate.

Now those who take the risk of generating their own income (And believe me it's a big risk: four out of five new businesses fail within One Year of starting), then have to purchase their own pensions: have to buy or risk income protection if sick; and have to also purchase Private Health Insurance on an Existing Conditions Excluded unlike the corporate block plans most employed people have with a decent company.

Oh: and they have to earn a living too.

As well as acting as unpaid administrators and tax collectors for VAT and if they dare to employ anyone for PAYE: at which point they're smashed in the goolies once more by Employer's NIC which are not cheap.

And before you airily dismiss the self employed, nearly 50% of Britain's Private Sector employment and 48% of Britains GDP is generated by SMEs (Small to Medium Sized Enterprises): and the vast number (In excess of 95%) are very small.

Yet they are attacked by idiot Government at every brook and turn, discriminated against for daring and instead of life being made easy, legions of Red Tape are heaped upon them.

And this poor sod whinges, justifiably, because he cannot attain some decent level of equality (And let's face it, ZanuLab ooze equality with every step and every bloody breath!) and you jump on your high horse and take him to task!

Sad!

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theboltonfury
I hear this gripe a lot from people. The answer to your question is that you pay into the system for the whole of the system. ie you are part and parcel of the whole system. Let me put this another way....

Imagine you live in a country that runs a different system eg India. Right so chances are your family had no health care provision, you wouldn't have been born in a hospital, but most likely in a squalid hut somewhere. You would have been about 15 -20 times more likely to die than had you been born in the UK. But as I assume that you <i>were</i> born in the UK and therefore you were born in a relatively safe medical environment with greatly reduced infant mortality, the cost of which was provided gratis to you ie you have just been born and you are taking massively from a system that you have not yet contributed to.

Let's go back to India, were you lucky enought to have survived birth getting to 5 years of age would be tricky, you would be significantly more likely to die than had you been born in the UK. You would have had no immunization against a lot of the preventable diseases that can kill or seriously impair an infant. Were you lucky enough to get to 5 years of age you would be subject to even more hazards as the threat to you from a poor diet (your parents could not afford the food you needed) or the lack of sanitation and clean water meant that you would be prone to the sort of illenesses that could cliam your young life at any time. A corresponding child born in the Uk however would have had a series of innoculations and immunizations organized and administered by a mixture of direct and indirect health workers, all of whom have to be paid. They would be receiving expensive drugs and treatment from them, again for free and they are still at least 10 years away from earning their first pay check. But it doesn't stop there, the systems that keep them safe,the water and sewerage systems all cost money to maintain, all of which they are dependent on for a safe existence. Not too mention the child benefit their parents receive - however meagre - in order to help provide for the child. All of this received for free,free,FREE !

Let's go back to India again. That child of 5, they won't go to school. There is no state school. Schools cost money and like most people in India, they can't afford to send their child. So they are sent out to work from as young as 4 and 5 , the work is hard often dangerous, pays little, working in conditions that are savage and for hours that are long and underpaid. The situation is deletrious enough for their young health, but even if they survive this , they are already laying down the foundations for a much reduced lifespan, significantly lower than their British counterpart.

Let's look at that British child again. At 5 they are enrolled for free in a state school, they receive, teaching and equipment to study, they receive it in a safe environment and may also be entitled to receive other benefits including, free clothing and meals. This care will be provided completely for free (the child pays nothing), it will last for 11 years or longer if they choose. All the systems that need to be in place, teachers, auxillary workers, dinner ladies, janitors, maintenace staff, support staff, the buildings, the gas, the water, the electricity (did i mention the free dental care and the increased child benefit ?) the child pays for none of this, it is all given for free.

Ok so let's look at that school leaving age. In the UK if the child worked hard and had ability they were fortunate enoughy to be born into a country that for all intents and purposes is a meritocracy, with a keen brain and plenty of hard work, the sky is potentially the limit. They could with a lot of hard work have a career in a multitude of fields that could be both financially rewarding and enjoyable and even if they were not that fortunate, with hard work alone they could still enjoy a relatively comfortable life'. Let's go back to India, the average child of 16 - 18 has already been working for over 10 years, their ability or intelligence is irrelevant they are condemned to do the job they are currently doing because there is simply no framework for which they could rise out of there current situation. They were born poor , they will live lives where they have few opportunities and they will die poor many years before there British counterparts.

Let's go back to that school leaver in the UK again. Assuming the very best scenario that they start work at 16 and start paying into the system from this point, how long do you think it would take for their contributions to even begin to cover the resources they have consumed for free up to this point ? 3 years ? 5 years ? try 20 - 30 years. And that's not even taking into account the chunk of their taxes and NI that go into maintaining systems and facilities that they are <b>currently</b> using, roads, doctors surgeries, emergency services etc etc. And if they should ever become seriously ill or have an accident , the cost of their care will never be recovered in their lifetime of paying tax . And this equation does not even begin to cover some of the later in life expenses such as hip replacements and pension contributions which they will expect as their "right".

So when you say "what is the point of paying" as if you have nobly paid so much and received so little, you are just one more of the army of dunderheads that understands little of society and what it costs to live in a civilised one.

Truly, you do not realize how fortunate you are and that this sytem that you seem to despise so much - although containing many flaws - has never the less provided you with opportunities (on so many different levels) that probably a full 2/3rds of the world's populations will probably never get to see.

It's a level of ignorance of the real world, that I find frankly grotesque.....

That post must really have calmed down the OP! He takes a chance to better himself and gets shafted by his state. You retort with how lucky he should feel.

It's idealistic at best, lefty rot at worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rousing words Ken.

Afraid to say you obviously know too little about Self Employment and its taxation.

The Self Employed pay not only a set weekly (Monthly by Direct Debit) flat sum fof Class Two NIC: they are then further taxed under what is called Class IV NIC on profits.

For which they receive no benefit whatsoever.

Furthermore, despite Class IV mirroring SERPS contributions, no additional pension is paid on retirement: just the flat rate.

Now those who take the risk of generating their own income (And believe me it's a big risk: four out of five new businesses fail within One Year of starting), then have to purchase their own pensions: have to buy or risk income protection if sick; and have to also purchase Private Health Insurance on an Existing Conditions Excluded unlike the corporate block plans most employed people have with a decent company.

Oh: and they have to earn a living too.

As well as acting as unpaid administrators and tax collectors for VAT and if they dare to employ anyone for PAYE: at which point they're smashed in the goolies once more by Employer's NIC which are not cheap.

And before you airily dismiss the self employed, nearly 50% of Britain's Private Sector employment and 48% of Britains GDP is generated by SMEs (Small to Medium Sized Enterprises): and the vast number (In excess of 95%) are very small.

Yet they are attacked by idiot Government at every brook and turn, discriminated against for daring and instead of life being made easy, legions of Red Tape are heaped upon them.

And this poor sod whinges, justifiably, because he cannot attain some decent level of equality (And let's face it, ZanuLab ooze equality with every step and every bloody breath!) and you jump on your high horse and take him to task!

Sad!

:angry:

yes - but your Class 2 & Class 4 Contributions are still less than the 11% am employee would be paying -

& some of the guys up this neck of the woods play tricks with Ltf company's and take dividends rather than wages sothat they dont have to pay NIC

Single man Company with mother as director so they can further divert money away from their taxable earnings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theboltonfury
yes - but your Class 2 & Class 4 Contributions are still less than the 11% am employee would be paying -

& some of the guys up this neck of the woods play tricks with Ltf company's and take dividends rather than wages sothat they dont have to pay NIC

Single man Company with mother as director so they can further divert money away from their taxable earnings

This is also true.

I am not up on this, but isn't there a difference between self-employed / sole trader and a contractor running through his own ltd company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rousing words Ken.

Afraid to say you obviously know too little about Self Employment and its taxation.

The Self Employed pay not only a set weekly (Monthly by Direct Debit) flat sum fof Class Two NIC: they are then further taxed under what is called Class IV NIC on profits.

For which they receive no benefit whatsoever.

Furthermore, despite Class IV mirroring SERPS contributions, no additional pension is paid on retirement: just the flat rate.

Now those who take the risk of generating their own income (And believe me it's a big risk: four out of five new businesses fail within One Year of starting), then have to purchase their own pensions: have to buy or risk income protection if sick; and have to also purchase Private Health Insurance on an Existing Conditions Excluded unlike the corporate block plans most employed people have with a decent company.

Oh: and they have to earn a living too.

As well as acting as unpaid administrators and tax collectors for VAT and if they dare to employ anyone for PAYE: at which point they're smashed in the goolies once more by Employer's NIC which are not cheap.

And before you airily dismiss the self employed, nearly 50% of Britain's Private Sector employment and 48% of Britains GDP is generated by SMEs (Small to Medium Sized Enterprises): and the vast number (In excess of 95%) are very small.

Yet they are attacked by idiot Government at every brook and turn, discriminated against for daring and instead of life being made easy, legions of Red Tape are heaped upon them.

And this poor sod whinges, justifiably, because he cannot attain some decent level of equality (And let's face it, ZanuLab ooze equality with every step and every bloody breath!) and you jump on your high horse and take him to task!

Sad!

:angry:

thus you completely miss my point. You TAKE THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE !

The suggestion that the whole system is wrong because of inconsistencies is the very point I am making. You then try to support this repetition of the very same argument by giving other examples of shortcomings of the system. I could simply reply by posting my whole original point again, but I won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theboltonfury

It seems the only way to avoid the 'inconsistencies' in the system is to be a workshy, festering, handout driven, pikey, scumbag of a fellow.

The ones that pay for our underclass are the ones who get slapped by the 'inconsistencies', while they get new TV's, nice houses and 24 hours a day to do what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say this OP. Even if you aren't getting anything, make sure your stamp is still being paid.

My OH has has problems with JSA. He would only qualify for cont based but they only work on a certain tax year at a time. He was made redundant a few years back. When he went to claim JSA last year he kept being told he wouldn't qualify as he hadn't paid enough NI contributions. We took this up with the NI dept following a letter to say there was a 40+ week shortfall. It turned out that the company he had worked for hadn't filed the details and he was nearly a year down. We can't reclaim the lost JSA as you only get a month to do it.

Before we got it sorted out he stopped bothering to sign on because we thought all it meant was yet another letter to say he wouldn't qualify.

We now realise, because he didn't bother to sign on, then he may have not have had is contributions paid for that week and we're going to be back where we started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems the only way to avoid the 'inconsistencies' in the system is to be a workshy, festering, handout driven, pikey, scumbag of a fellow.

The ones that pay for our underclass are the ones who get slapped by the 'inconsistencies', while they get new TV's, nice houses and 24 hours a day to do what they want.

A simpleton providing a simplistic argument. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A labour voter, Kenny?

Very left wing?

I hope you get punched by a chav - poetic justice.

See the underclass your type has created.

Oh, BTW, I'm all for a decent welfare system, but one more akin to Scandinavian types - you get paid the majority of your salary for the first week, then the amount decreases per week of unemployment, down to almost nothing. Less chance for long term abuse, and it helps those that pay in.

I note that the Scandi's don't seem to have as large a "long-term unemployed" problem as we do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theboltonfury
A simpleton providing a simplistic argument. Thanks.

Tell me why it was wrong? Ideally without resorting to once again reminding us all of your hugely superior intellect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theboltonfury
A labour voter, ?

Very left wing?

I hope you get punched by a chav - poetic justice.

See the underclass your type has created.

Well said. Smart ar5e on the internet yet not a clue in the real world that we have to live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A labour voter, Kenny?

Very left wing?

I hope you get punched by a chav - poetic justice.

See the underclass your type has created.

Oh, BTW, I'm all for a decent welfare system, but one more akin to Scandinavian types - you get paid the majority of your salary for the first week, then the amount decreases per week of unemployment, down to almost nothing. Less chance for long term abuse, and it helps those that pay in.

I note that the Scandi's don't seem to have as large a "long-term unemployed" problem as we do?

Same tired old arguments. Different day. If you want to have a debate about people who abuse the welfare state, fine, we can all pretty much all agree that people do abuse the system. It's a problem no doubt. How to fix it without affecting the genuine, I'm all ears. However, surely the point is not that unemployment benefit is a bad thing, but that when people abuse it, it becomes a bad thing. Do you see the difference ? Or are there two many shades of greyh in there for you (and this is the issue at it's most simplest. The same as the whole system isn't crap, just because some parts of it are crap.

BTW try not to think too much in black and white terms LABOUR VOTER = BAD, TORY = GOOD, ALL PEOPLE ON BENEFITS ARE SCROUNGERS, you will just have to take my word for it that the world is a tincey wincey bit more complex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes - but your Class 2 & Class 4 Contributions are still less than the 11% am employee would be paying -

& some of the guys up this neck of the woods play tricks with Ltf company's and take dividends rather than wages sothat they dont have to pay NIC

Single man Company with mother as director so they can further divert money away from their taxable earnings

But for your 11% (only between the Lower Earnings Limit and the Upper Earnings Limit) you receive back:

1. Non Means -Tested JSA:, &,

2. More critically SERPS.

The Self employed person receives NOTHING for their Class IV NIC!

It is tax: pure tax and nought else!

And then they pay tax at the same rate as the employed.

Also for your 11%, you are guranteed statutory redundancy pay even if your employer is insolvent and potless (The taxpayer again): and you have paid holidays by law.

Tricks with company dividends eh?

Nice idea: shame about the regime of NCDs (Non Corporate Distribution) Tax which ran from April 2004 to 2006.

And now instead of the low starting rates for Corporation Tax, as from 2006, the starting rates are abolished and reverted back to 19% and NCDs are have been abolished too.

And furthermore, with the abolition of ACT (Advance Corporation Tax), the Dividend Route became less favourable.

Etc.

Then add Section 660 which forces companies who accord any percentage of distribution to a non-working director (The Mum you mention) to accrue the tax to the actual working directors or persons and tax them accordingly.

Plus also remember with the abolition of ACT, tax is paid TWICE on profit distributed as Dividend: once as Corporation Tax: and second as Unearned Income by the dividend recipient.

Finally consider the implementation of IR35: which screwed many techies and engineers right royally!

Yes indeed: ZanuLab are most certainly the party of enterprise and wealth creation: if you happen to be a politician that is.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell me why it was wrong? Ideally without resorting to once again reminding us all of your hugely superior intellect.

"It seems the only way to avoid the 'inconsistencies' in the system is to be a workshy, festering, handout driven, pikey, scumbag of a fellow.

The ones that pay for our underclass are the ones who get slapped by the 'inconsistencies', while they get new TV's, nice houses and 24 hours a day to do what they want."

And you say "tell me why I am wrong", how about that your contribution is simply an incoherent stream of consiousness spouting every stereo type in the book.

Good grief, how do you people work computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thus you completely miss my point. You TAKE THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE !

The suggestion that the whole system is wrong because of inconsistencies is the very point I am making. You then try to support this repetition of the very same argument by giving other examples of shortcomings of the system. I could simply reply by posting my whole original point again, but I won't.

No, please don't: I feel we got the message loud and clear the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest theboltonfury
"It seems the only way to avoid the 'inconsistencies' in the system is to be a workshy, festering, handout driven, pikey, scumbag of a fellow.

The ones that pay for our underclass are the ones who get slapped by the 'inconsistencies', while they get new TV's, nice houses and 24 hours a day to do what they want."

And you say "tell me why I am wrong", how about that your contribution is simply an incoherent stream of consiousness spouting every stereo type in the book.

Good grief, how do you people work computers.

Are you wearing a smoking jacket Kenny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.