Benefits: Revive 'principle of contribution' says Labour

[*_ash_*]

I don't know about the 100K figure, but I do remember reading an article in the telegraph about this very subject.

 

Whilst it would seem probable that the poor pay in less but claim more, it proved via charts and tables that the reverse is true.

 

Mainly, as I remember it, because the wealthy live several years longer and the most use of 'welfare facilities' (including hospital treatment) occur in old age, the longer lived actually claim the most, and that tends to be the wealthy. They also tend to claim the state pension for much longer.

 

Curious but true.

 

Bold. So the charts and tables showed that the poor pay in the most, and claim the least.

 

Might you be able to find the link to this AB? You have my curiosity for the truth bubbling away

[Vague_Boy]

What??? Labour???

 

I can never see that happening.

 

I hope you were being ironic there.

 

Rich get richer under Labour according to new figures

 

 

Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

 

Orwell had it sussed 60 years ago.

[andygardener]

Bold. So the charts and tables showed that the poor pay in the most, and claim the least.

 

Might you be able to find the link to this AB? You have my curiosity for the truth bubbling away

 

Well if that's the case then deficit sorted. Just jack up taxes on the already massive overpayments by the "poor" who pay in huge amounts according to the Guardian and it's all sorted.

[*_ash_*]

Well if that's the case then deficit sorted. Just jack up taxes on the already massive overpayments by the "poor" who pay in huge amounts according to the Guardian and it's all sorted.

 

I'm looking forward to reading this.

[MrSmith]

I'm looking forward to reading this.

 

It probably came from here.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9630247&postcount=42

Liberal Democrats say, in 2007-08, the poorest fifth of households had a gross annual income of £11,105 on average, and paid £4,302 a year in tax, a ratio of 38.7%. Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale, the richest fifth of households had an average gross annual income of £74,247, and paid £25,926 in tax, on average, a ratio of 34.9%.

 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies

 

The Liberal Democrats have, once again, claimed that the poor pay more of their income in tax than the rich, and that this gap has got larger under Labour. But, by ignoring the fact that the poor get most of this income from the state in benefit and tax credit payments, and by overstating the extent to which indirect taxes are paid by the poor, this comparison is meaningless at best and misleading at worst.

[Mecky]

Well if that's the case then deficit sorted. Just jack up taxes on the already massive overpayments by the "poor" who pay in huge amounts according to the Guardian and it's all sorted.

 

Or just rope in all the tax dodgers which would make the services affordable. Look at what happened in Greece, Italy etc. The national sport of those countries is tax dodging

[El Cid]

Also: In the USA -

 

"For their 2011 tax returns, the Romneys paid nearly $2 million in taxes on an income of $13.7 million for an effective tax rate of 14.1%"

 

Its the super rich that can avoid paying tax, its those middle earners that maybe pay more of their fare share.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Tax_returns

[MrSmith]

I don't know about the 100K figure, but I do remember reading an article in the telegraph about this very subject.

 

Whilst it would seem probable that the poor pay in less but claim more, it proved via charts and tables that the reverse is true.

 

Mainly, as I remember it, because the wealthy live several years longer and the most use of 'welfare facilities' (including hospital treatment) occur in old age, the longer lived actually claim the most, and that tends to be the wealthy. They also tend to claim the state pension for much longer.

 

Curious but true.

 

I worked this out for you, I used a single mother with two children living in private rented house as my example, I assumed she worked part time and earned £4000 a year. This would probably make her one of the poor people, you will notice she pays no income tax and is given another £13,218.06 in benefits, now how is it possible that she pays more tax than someone that is wealthier, she is clearly a negative tax contributor but still uses services.

[Mecky]

I don't like the idea of the more you pay in the more you get out. We would all like to put more away for a rainy day, I think the term is, but if you have little or nothing anyway, you can't put anything away.

[El Cid]

I don't like the idea of the more you pay in the more you get out. We would all like to put more away for a rainy day, I think the term is, but if you have little or nothing anyway, you can't put anything away.

 

There is no reson why a single mother should not work, once her children have reached a reasonable age. Even the dis-abled can work given the right incentives. Work is good.