alchresearch Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 If you believe council tax is a tax upon property then you are mistaken. Tenants pay income tax too. Income tax is a tax upon income. But only certain types of income. 0.25 trillion is the direct cash subsidy to property via housing benfit over a decade inflation adjusted to current cash terms, there are of course other subsidies, some of which are even greater. I think you need to take your land gripes to another thread, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the original discussion and whether the girl should work or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Really, perhaps you could explain that. The tax is payable once per household (ie group of people that live in a house) and is dependent on the value of the property... Sounds pretty much like a tax on property. Yet a property with people living in it is different to an empty property and some £1million houses attract less tax than some £30k ones I didn't say that tenants didn't pay it. And it's most income, there are a few exceptions but not many. Why mention it then? How do you think this involves most home owners then? I've never been given any money directly or indirectly via HB. Which most home owners receive? If the government pays £100 for faeces, I'm pretty sure I could pop one out for about a ton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I think you need to take your land gripes to another thread, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the original discussion and whether the girl should work or not. She is a landless peasant. She cannot afford to grow a potato. How do you expect her to provide for herself without benefits when she is denied the ability to grow her own food? She is (in a fashion) a slave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 She could get a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 She could get a job. Back in the day, "slaves" could pick cotton or starve. When they worked they were housed and fed. Do you reckon this girl should work (for her benefits) if she wishes to be housed and fed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 She is a landless peasant. She cannot afford to grow a potato. How do you expect her to provide for herself without benefits when she is denied the ability to grow her own food? She is (in a fashion) a slave. I'm not up to date with non-NUJ rates for submissions but I estimate the £200 she got from the Guardian for her article will be plenty to buy a few large plant pots and potato seeds. Even someone on the dole could afford that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Back in the day, "slaves" could pick cotton or starve. Or be beaten, or shot. When they worked they were housed and fed. They weren't guaranteed this, they couldn't choose to go and work for someone else, or go and get a boat back to Africa. We all have the choice of working or starving, that's not slavery, that's responsibility for yourself! Do you reckon this girl should work (for her benefits) if she wishes to be housed and fed? I think she should follow the rules that are set in order to be given charity. If she doesn't wish to follow them she's free to starve herself through her refusal to work. We can all assert our freedom by refusing to work and letting ourselves starve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 She says her problem with the scheme was that she was told it was 'training' that would lead to a job interview, which it didn't. That won't stand up in court. I've read as much of the JSA as I could before I nearly died of boredom, but the MWA looks pretty water tight to me. She perhaps didn't read it all. Most probably don't. My work contract is long, and boring, but I've read it all because it defines my income, and means to live. Perhaps as a uni graduate, I would expect her to have looked into things further. All of that seems pretty reasonable to me. Making someone who already has retail experience and is in the middle of a voluntary placement in a socially useful sector clean floors and stack shelves for two weeks is entirely pointless for everyone except Poundland, which is getting free labour. Why on earth should corporations benefit from the unemployment problem? In her position I'd be pretty irked too. I can't say that I wouldn't be irked too, but so far, all the arguments against in this thread have been 'moral' ones. If she is going to court, morals won't stand up to written agreements, unless they are unreasonable or break HR laws. I can't see anything that suggests either of the two. If she wins, I'll put in my claim for whiplash. If she loses, and her legal costs were paid by tax-payers, then I expect her to pay back all the legal fees, and all that she has claimed fraudulently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forumosaurus Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I think you should only be allowed to claim benefits if you can juggle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Web Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Why do folk think 22 years old is still a girl? at what age does she become a woman? when she gets a job, wins the court case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.