REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[So Long Architect]

Cyber, I'm struggling to understand why you're not at least as angry about tax fraudsters, who cost the public purse so much more? Is it because they're not so apparently visible? I say apparently because you've offered no evidence that the characters in your anecdote were doing anything but spending money they were legally entitled to in a manner you disapprove of.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Are those people in the queue at your local co-op "taking the piss" because they don't spend their money the way you think they should? And, unless they are amongst the 15% who are committing benefit fraud it is their money. It isn't your money they are spending.

http://www.cas.org.uk/features/myth-busting-real-figures-benefit-fraud



So tax fraud, by any measure, is more a problem than benefit fraud but poor people are an easy target to get pissed off with. They are the scroungers. When they buy scratch cards and lottery cards they can be sneered at.

If we eliminated all benefit fraud it would hardly make any difference.

If we eliminated all tax fraud it would make a huge difference.

That's why we are different. My value base says it is my money as I have been working PAYE all my life. Therefore my taxes v your benefits resonates with me and not in a good way. My base says that as a non claimer i cant afford to gamble like that or smoke but they can. Is it really any wonder i ask these questions in my mind? The system was not designed to support that I do agree that tax fraud in volume is a bigger amount but its often far more complex to prove and more costly to prosecute ( and I do know that as fact lol )

 

[Parkins left foot]

So 15% are true! There are 600 reports or more every day. That's 100 correct reports every day according to your figures. 500 a week. 2000 a month. 24000 a year. No its not an issue is it. Ffs that is exactly why people in Britain get pissed off because 24000 people a year are taking the piss and thats the ones we catch.

Clearly a need to bring back the Workhouse then - would solve the problem

 

[Johnny75]

That's why we are different. My value base says it is my money as I have been working PAYE all my life. Therefore my taxes v your benefits resonates with me and not in a good way. My base says that as a non claimer i cant afford to gamble like that or smoke but they can. Is it really any wonder i ask these questions in my mind? The system was not designed to support that I do agree that tax fraud in volume is a bigger amount but its often far more complex to prove and more costly to prosecute ( and I do know that as fact lol )

I find this kind of Daily Mail/ UKIP rhetoric really distasteful and hateful too. Papper lamented earlier about people not being able to be forced into work. There seems to be a common hatred between those that voted to Leave, in that you hate people not working as you see them as stealing from you personally and if they increase the population then they are personally attacking your public services and should be made to wear identifiable clothing and immediately sent to work or deported. Why are you all so filled with hate?

To the point in your post, what would you like the people you saw in your shop spend their money on? You are outraged at people spending their money on what they want, you are angry that you do not have enough money to smoke and gamble? Why would you want to smoke anyway?

So the question is really, why don't you have enough money to do what you want to do?

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Clearly a need to bring back the Workhouse then - would solve the problem

No we need to bring in universal income, end benefits all round. If you choose not to work you can still live but will have to compromise. Either way I can then say who the fuck am I to judge as I spend my money how I want you spend yours how you like

 

[The Saturday Boy]

That's why we are different. My value base says it is my money as I have been working PAYE all my life. Therefore my taxes v your benefits resonates with me and not in a good way. My base says that as a non claimer i cant afford to gamble like that or smoke but they can. Is it really any wonder i ask these questions in my mind? The system was not designed to support that I do agree that tax fraud in volume is a bigger amount but its often far more complex to prove and more costly to prosecute ( and I do know that as fact lol )

When you pay your taxes, that money is the government's. At best, the money that the government holds is ours collectively but certainly not individually. It is commonly referred to as Taxpayers Money, plural. Claiming ownership of money you can't spend, have little say in how it is allocated and can't take back in order that you can make a moral point is just bizarre especially as you have described yourself as a social democrat. What you are describing is straight out of the Libertarian play book.

And you are a claimer - our taxes (not your taxes) pay for street lighting, refuse collection, health, education, welfare, police, fire, defence....are you saying you have never claimed any of those things.

 

[Trips]

Its false hope. I object to a system put in place to rightly help those not fortunate enough or in a position to help themselves that allows for such hypocrisy. " I can't afford to eat" but you can afford to smoke and play the lottery ffs. Compass is completely off. Perhaps its me.

How many of the 4 people in the queue at Co-Op complained about not being able to eat?

And why is it anyone's business how people spend their money? I work full-time and earn a decent salary, my wife works full-time in the NHS, we have 2 children and get child benefit paid to my wife for them. How is it anyone business what we spend that money on?

 

[Deleted Cyber]

I find this kind of Daily Mail/ UKIP rhetoric really distasteful and hateful too. Papper lamented earlier about people not being able to be forced into work. There seems to be a common hatred between those that voted to Leave, in that you hate people not working as you see them as stealing from you personally and if they increase the population then they are personally attacking your public services and should be made to wear identifiable clothing and immediately sent to work or deported. Why are you all so filled with hate?

To the point in your post, what would you like the people you saw in your shop spend their money on? You are outraged at people spending their money on what they want, you are angry that you do not have enough money to smoke and gamble? Why would you want to smoke anyway?

So the question is really, why don't you have enough money to do what you want to do?

What the fuck? Johnny you have made a pretty fucking big leap there me old mate. But I do concede I don't see it as a responsible use of their money in a system that I pay to support. Only universal income would change that. If everyone gets 20 k a year from the state I don't give as fuck how u spend it just don't come crying to me about how unfair life is when you have spunked it on fags and scratch cards lol!
I have a money but like 90% of the country or more I am on a budget. You have to live to your means

 

[Johnny75]

What the $#@!? Johnny you have made a pretty $#@!ing big leap there me old mate. But I do concede I don't see it as a responsible use of their money in a system that I pay to support. Only universal income would change that. If everyone gets 20 k a year from the state I don't give as $#@! how u spend it just don't come crying to me about how unfair life is when you have spunked it on fags and scratch cards lol!
I have a money but like 90% of the country or more I am on a budget. You have to live to your means

Then you won't mind what they spend their money on then. I prefer the outlook that says you invest your money (be that in kids, education or physical investment) as that way you will be far happier that you've put time and effort into that and stop worrying about everybody else.

Perhaps the people in your shop are making bad investment decisions (smoking and gambling) but at least they are free to make them and sometimes giving people money isn't the only way.

There is a telling saying somewhere (which I can't find at the moment) that if you chase money you will always be poor, but if you chase a specific set of goals you will be far happier in the end, even if you don't reach them. I think a lot of people aren't given or shown there are opportunities for them to do something different and they will be stuck in a rut as they know no different. Giving people more money will not necessarily improve that situation. Of course some people will go out and find opportunity but others will not and whilst difficult to accept that is life.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Then you won't mind what they spend their money on then. I prefer the outlook that says you invest your money (be that in kids, education or physical investment) as that way you will be far happier that you've put time and effort into that and stop worrying about everybody else.

Perhaps the people in your shop are making bad investment decisions (smoking and gambling) but at least they are free to make them and sometimes giving people money isn't the only way.

There is a telling saying somewhere (which I can't find at the moment) that if you chase money you will always be poor, but if you chase a specific set of goals you will be far happier in the end, even if you don't reach them. I think a lot of people aren't given or shown there are opportunities for them to do something different and they will be stuck in a rut as they know no different. Giving people more money will not necessarily improve that situation. Of course some people will go out and find opportunity but others will not and whilst difficult to accept that is life.

Good god that is profound! I get that maybe my value base and upbringing have influenced me! But I will never see benefits as "their money to do as they like". The fact that the system can be played makes me want to change the system. Universal income, tax levels as they are and more money to the NHS and I am happy then!

You can then scrap tax allowances as everyone gets 12 k tax free and anything they earn gets taxed at 20 or 40%. If that was to happen I would bin child benefit too. Keep it simple and keep costs down.

 

[visage]

That's why we are different. My value base says it is my money as I have been working PAYE all my life. Therefore my taxes v your benefits resonates with me and not in a good way. My base says that as a non claimer i cant afford to gamble like that or smoke but they can. Is it really any wonder i ask these questions in my mind? The system was not designed to support that I do agree that tax fraud in volume is a bigger amount but its often far more complex to prove and more costly to prosecute ( and I do know that as fact lol )

It's not your money. There's no pot with your name on it.

If there were then it's only fair that you own part of the debt too, right?

 

[Trips]

Good god that is profound! I get that maybe my value base and upbringing have influenced me! But I will never see benefits as "their money to do as they like". The fact that the system can be played makes me want to change the system. Universal income, tax levels as they are and more money to the NHS and I am happy then!

You can then scrap tax allowances as everyone gets 12 k tax free and anything they earn gets taxed at 20 or 40%. If that was to happen I would bin child benefit too. Keep it simple and keep costs down.

So, as an example, you would give an 18 year-old straight out of school the same £12k as a single mother of 3 young children?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

How do you KNOW it is benefits?

Many single mums also receive a payment from the father of the child. Often to the tune of hundreds per month.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

How do you KNOW it is benefits?

Many single mums also receive a payment from the father of the child. Often to the tune of hundreds per month.

Know the families mate. Fathers both earn fuck all so they Get minimum CSA but do get benefits. How much I don't know

 

[lemonjelly]

I'm not that far off. Think there is a household benefits cap of £25K. Individually perhaps the same when you take into account the costs of living.

Benefit cap has been reduced to £23k too (if you're in London - £20k outside of London). Those figures are a lot lower than your starting point of £28k.

I've posted this/similar before, but approx 49% of the total welfare bill goes on the over 60's. If you genuinely wanted to make efficiency savings that make a difference, that's where you'd go. No government does, because all party's are worried about the impact of such a policy on the "grey vote".

The next largest proportion of welfare is approx 36% on tax credits.

Over 80% of housing benefits claimants are in employment.

Fraud accounts for less loss in the welfare system than official error.

The total JSA bill is miniscule. Here's a pic, look how tiny the JSA segment is:

The cuts to welfare are miniscule in the grand scheme. As such, the so-called "logic" of it being to bring down the total spend is erroneous. The cuts implemented, are therefore ideological.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

So, as an example, you would give an 18 year-old straight out of school the same £12k as a single mother of 3 young children?

Yes universal income v life choices. Its 2017. I accept you can get 1 child by accident but 3? Nope, career choice.and you will be getting 25% of the fathers net income as maintenance so that's 3k of his universal and say he earns 25k a year working that's another 6 k. So single mum 3 kids gets 21k for being a full time mum. Almost to the ceiling of 23k benefits and she can still work if at all possible and spend her monery how she likes without the likes of me having any issue. Sorted

No disability allowance, no state pension, no job seekers, no scroungers, no judgements. Universal income could be the answer

 

[Parkins left foot]

Benefit cap has been reduced to £23k too (if you're in London - £20k outside of London). Those figures are a lot lower than your starting point of £28k.

I've posted this/similar before, but approx 49% of the total welfare bill goes on the over 60's. If you genuinely wanted to make efficiency savings that make a difference, that's where you'd go. No government does, because all party's are worried about the impact of such a policy on the "grey vote".

The next largest proportion of welfare is approx 36% on tax credits.

Over 80% of housing benefits claimants are in employment.

Fraud accounts for less loss in the welfare system than official error.

The total JSA bill is miniscule. Here's a pic, look how tiny the JSA segment is:

The cuts to welfare are miniscule in the grand scheme. As such, the so-called "logic" of it being to bring down the total spend is erroneous. The cuts implemented, are therefore ideological.

Not sure that that is entirely correct - my last tax statement indicated that my contribution to welfare was £1145, whilst the amount paid for state pensions was £586 (though accept that some of the welfare benefits go to pensioners on low income).

Agree though that the fact that we have to top up incomes of a number who are in full time work is not acceptable - and I have worked alongside a number in that catagory

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Know the families mate. Fathers both earn fuck all so they Get minimum CSA but do get benefits. How much I don't know

Well as far as I can see you are criticising them for their spending choices more than anything.

Without being overly rude, why is that any of your business?

 

[Trips]

Yes universal income v life choices. Its 2017. I accept you can get 1 child by accident but 3? Nope, career choice.and you will be getting 25% of the fathers net income as maintenance so that's 3k of his universal and say he earns 25k a year working that's another 6 k. So single mum 3 kids gets 21k for being a full time mum. Almost to the ceiling of 23k benefits and she can still work if at all possible and spend her monery how she likes without the likes of me having any issue. Sorted

No disability allowance, no state pension, no job seekers, no scroungers, no judgements. Universal income could be the answer

Firstly, the use of "career choice" is an extremely ignorant and prejudiced view of things. And I never said anything about her being an "accidental" mother of 3.

Your example of the father earning £25k on top of his £12k is a nice theory but in practice, but this will not be the case for everybody. Also, there are plenty of cases of father's not contributing to their children's upbringing and mothers having to do it alone.

And what about the "career choice" mother of 3 who's partner has passed away? Or the "career choice" mother of 3 who had a successful career whilst making the choice to raise children alone, who suddenly finds herself out of work?

Your theory of "You will be getting 25% of father's net income" doesn't work for a lot of cases.

I'm not opposed entirely to the idea of a national income, but I don't feel a blanket £12k (or whatever amount) is the way forward.

 

[Penk Wolf]

Harsh, I'm not sure 'letting people struggle' is right though.

It is more looking at it that if help people to get up the ladder then all well and good but everybody has to help themselves too. True free market economics can't work.

Okay yeah, see your point.

I want a mix of the two. Those that truly need help for whatever reason should get it, but those that aren't happy with what they earn or think living on benefits should be happy with what they have or do something about it.