Jump to content

Does anyone agree with taking money off the poor to give to the rich?


Recommended Posts

That's the reality, but many on here refuse to believe it.

 

They far prefer to imagine anybody with money to be born to the landed gentry, with ancestors who benefitted from serfdom - that way their jealous hatred is - in their eyes - justified.

 

The truth is that most wealthy people are where they are through talent and/or hard work. The lazy and feckless don't like to acknowledge that you can do well if you put your back into it, so they ignore reality.

 

 

There are people who need the welfare system and should be entitled to its support, but for each of those there are 4 or 5 people whose benefits should be cut until they accept a menial low-paid job rather than choose a life of sponging and watching afternoon tv.

 

The welfare state is the biggest chunk of Britain's spending budget, and a small percentage cut in that area would put the country back on track.

 

I'm all for cutting benefits.

 

Bring back the Workhouse !!!!!!! You would get a job there, your views remind me of the typical Beadle as described by Charles Dickens.

One has only to read Dickens and Orwell to see what Cameron is up to.

You could do with some sort of handicap and be forced into a 'menial low paid job'. It would do you the world of good and stop you from posting crap on forums. You sir, are a moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All paid for by the tax the rich pay, if the rich people leave there won't be enough tax to pay for these things.

I pay tax, I’m not poor, I don’t pay anywhere near enough to cover the cost of the services that are provided for me, it’s the tax that the rich pay that covers most of the cost. If the rich should relocate to another country as many people want, then unemployment will increase, tax will drop and the poor will be significantly worse off.

I know, it sucks that some people have loads of cash whilst other don’t, but that’s life and without the greedy people at the top we would all be worse off.

 

It's not all paid for by the tax from the rich. It's partially paid for by the tax from the rich. We pay the rest.

 

Don't imply that I've got something against high earning people. I haven't ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your broad sweeping attack, there is no mention of the fact that a lot of poor people work their arses off in 2 or more jobs to make ends meet. Millions of the lowest paid are on in work benefits of some sort, or housing benefit top ups as their employers don't pay them what is considered a living wage (many of these employers are large employers too who could well afford a living wage).

You forget to mention that wealth and privilidge of begets wealth and priviledge, so thejobs in the professions like the media, fashion and finance often go to people with family connections (i.e. it's not 'what you know but who you know'). Another reason why social mobility has ground to a halt in this country.

Fair enough there are idlers, and they get a huge amount of media attention, but the working poor don't, the undeserving rich don't, companies that rely on taxpayers largesse don't.

And don't assume that people are merely jealous of the rich when they point out inconvenient truths you don't like. It's about fair play - that you don't understand or acknowledge this says more about you than it does those who oppose your political views.

 

Cobblers. Explain then how I as a coal miners son from the arse end of NE Derbyshire made it to running a nice little company that turns over a good few million a year? Wealth and privilege? I sure didn't start with any thanks and I don't dish it out either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need new glasses.

 

Have a play with this

 

The Blessed Margaret fully understood the necessity of unemployment to capitalism. Just imagine what would happen if we suddenly got full employment.

 

I think it is you that needs glasses.

 

Unemployment at election 1997

 

1.66 million

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2001/feb/15/economicpolicy.ukgeneralelection2001

 

Unemployment election 2010

 

2.51 million

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10109965

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not all paid for by the tax from the rich. It's partially paid for by the tax from the rich. We pay the rest.

 

Don't imply that I've got something against high earning people. I haven't ;)

:nod:

Poor people don't pay tax, and everyone that isn't poor is rich, so it’s all paid for by the rich, but most is paid by the richest 10%. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've worked for over 30 years and have yet to come across someone who is/was indispensible.

 

If these people left then there would be plenty more prepared to do the same work as them for slightly less income.

 

if I had the ability I'd quite happily replace Carols tevez for half the money.

 

They wouldn't leave the companies they work for, they'd relocate to Geneva (for example) continue to do the work and earn the money, but pay no tax in the UK anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They wouldn't leave the companies they work for, they'd relocate to Geneva (for example) continue to do the work and earn the money, but pay no tax in the UK anymore.

 

A bit like this guy for example.

 

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/City-chairman-leaves-UK-avoid-taxes/story-11258388-detail/story.html

 

BRISTOL City chairman Steve Lansdown has revealed he has moved to the Channel Islands in the wake of the Government's decision to increase income tax for the super rich to 50 per cent.

 

Mr Lansdown – who is one of the city's most successful businessmen and has a personal fortune of £452 million – has bought a house on Guernsey and is now living full-time in the tax-free haven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...

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.