Mister M Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 One of the problems that plagued housing estates in the 1970s and 1980s were huge swathes of workless households and the problems that flowed from that. I know that councils like Sheffield have now endeavoured to make sure that there is a mix of households in places like Norfolk Park so there are owner occupied as well as social housing. I do think if council housing becomes housing of the last resort it will soon turn into slum housing. Also if people who are workless know that they will lose their homes, won't that create a disincentive to work or to take extra hours at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossdog Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 In reality , many super rich people do not. They have accountants who arrange their finances in such a way that they legally avoid paying tax.Whilst some of the not well off save on accountancy bills and illegally avoid paying tax!.................we all know one or two. I bet there is a larger sum of illegal tax evasion by the not well off than the legal tax avoidance of the super rich!because a large number of the nation have been involved in illegal tax evasion of some form at some time or other..................and that's a fact! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geraldo Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Whilst some of the not well off save on accountancy bills and illegally avoid paying tax!.................we all know one or two. I bet there is a larger sum of illegal tax avoidance by the not well off than the legal tax avoidance of the super rich!because most of the nation have been involved in illegal tax avoidance at some time or other..................and that's a fact! If it is legal, it is tax avoidance. If it is illegal it is tax evasion. I am not guilty of either. I am a little angel ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geraldo Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 One of the problems that plagued housing estates in the 1970s and 1980s were huge swathes of workless households and the problems that flowed from that. I know that councils like Sheffield have now endeavoured to make sure that there is a mix of households in places like Norfolk Park so there are owner occupied as well as social housing. I do think if council housing becomes housing of the last resort it will soon turn into slum housing. Also if people who are workless know that they will lose their homes, won't that create a disincentive to work or to take extra hours at work. It already is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossdog Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Every day the ordinary working man or woman subsidises the idle rich. People who are born into vast amounts of wealth (cameron is a good example) never have to work, they are subsidised to the hilt. Everyone who works in a factory, works the fields, builds houses, drives a taxi subsidise them every day of their lives! You didn't happen to be in the same class as TITANIC at school did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geraldo Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 You didn't happen to be in the same class as TITANIC at school did you? Now I have got that sinking feeling! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 If it is legal, it is tax avoidance. If it is illegal it is tax evasion. I am not guilty of either. I am a little angel ! Being 'not guilty' of tax avoidance is an act of idiocy, not angelicity. (Is angelicity a word? Well, it is now.) Nobody with any sense would ever pay more tax than they are required to by law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geraldo Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Being 'not guilty' of tax avoidance is an act of idiocy, not angelicity. (Is angelicity a word? Well, it is now.) Nobody with any sense would ever pay more tax than they are required to by law. Thus spake the seraphitical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Every day the ordinary working man or woman subsidises the idle rich. People who are born into vast amounts of wealth (cameron is a good example) never have to work, they are subsidised to the hilt. Everyone who works in a factory, works the fields, builds houses, drives a taxi subsidise them every day of their lives! Inherited wealth, which is my topic, also has nothing to do with income tax.So, a factory worker/farmhand/builder/tax driver done good is an impossibility, is it? Could not ever buy his own home and pass it to his spouse and/or children? And/or stash a nest-egg over time for the same purpose? Or, God forbid, elevate himself beyond manual labour and become a successful entrepeneur (at any level of the scale, from a corner shop to an Virgin-like empire) or educate himself at night/spare time to become a professional? At what threshold does "inherited wealth" become unacceptable, by your standards? I am genuinely interested (in finding out how far your double-standards can reach ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansheff Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 And all that admin will have to be paid for out of public money. So much for saving public money to deal with the deficit! Never mind, as long as Dave and Georges buddies make money, they will just make more cuts for the rest of us to pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.