chem1st Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 When we live in a society where some of the poorest people in our society, without any assets and without income, are denied a minimum basic income in order to feed themselves on the basis of being both human and alive. Why do we give subsidies to some of the most asset rich people in UK? The poorest who are denied an income from the state, lack any income and assets are not exempt from myriad regressive taxes, and when working, an ever higher proportion of wages in National Insurance to fund a welfare state that does not provide for them. (12% above the threshold up from 4% when it was introduced some 101 years ago). If they earn but a few pounds, working in the black market for less than minimum wage, they still face many taxes upon their income. How can we justify such taxation, when we give non means tested subsidies to some of the most asset rich and income rich in the UK? And how can we justify such non means tested subsidies when we deny subsidies for the poorest, whilst at the same time, denying the poorest basic freedoms so that they might be able to feed and house themselves? What we have is worse than slavery. For slaves must be housed and fed. Why do we give subsidies to some of the most asset rich people in UK? Anybody who has ever had the audacity to preach about free markets, ought to say why... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Why do we give subsidies to some of the most asset rich people in UK? Specific examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Specific examples? Why should he give specific examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Why should he give specific examples? Because we don't know what subsidies, or to who, he/she is talking about. I'm guessing he means the Royal Family, but I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Because we don't know what subsidies, or to who, he/she is talking about. I'm guessing he means the Royal Family, but I could be wrong. I think he might be smart enough not to give specific examples and leave himself open to attack and get side-tracked onto grounds where people think they can get a discrediting troll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 The poorest who are denied an income from the state, lack any income and assets are not exempt from myriad regressive taxes, and when working, an ever higher proportion of wages in National Insurance to fund a welfare state that does not provide for them. (12% above the threshold up from 4% when it was introduced some 101 years ago). But the poorest are given an income from the state, which makes the whole premiss of your argument wrong. They get money on a regular basis, somewhere to live and free stuff that others have to pay for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 It really would be helpful if the op gave us a tiny little clue as to what subsidy he was talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I think he might be smart enough not to give specific examples and leave himself open to attack and get side-tracked onto grounds where people think they can get a discrediting troll If he can't give specific examples he doesn't have an argument. He can say anything he likes but he has to provide evidence and corroboration to back up what he's alleging. Otherwise what can we debate but theories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Why should he give specific examples? Because otherwise it's impossible to know what he's talking about or to comment or reply. ---------- Post added 20-01-2014 at 08:52 ---------- I think he might be smart enough not to give specific examples and leave himself open to attack and get side-tracked onto grounds where people think they can get a discrediting troll It's not smart to try to start a discussion and not give anything specific to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukdobby Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 But we give money to not so well off people to have tattoos and buy dog food,so asset rich Edwina says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.