"I've paid into the system!"

[salou4]

In countries where there is high income support it is found to actually incentivise people into work.

 

 

Really, can you show us the evidence.

 

Have you ever been to Singapore, or many of the other relatively wealthy and secure parts of Asia.

[max]

Oh you're here look!

 

Wondered how long until you popped up asking ridiculous questions.

 

The answer is NO.

 

I like what you did though.. You took the first part of my post and 'quoted' it, but left out the second part of my post which is where i explain i'd rather be in my position, paying my taxes and it going to whoever needs it! i never mentioned anything about the government writing to me with an expenditure form asking me to inform them where i think my taxes should be spent.

 

You were lucky, my post was quoted followed by a complete non sequitur.

[Chelle-82]

You were lucky, my post was quoted followed by a complete non sequitur.

 

I don't believe you!

[psynuk]

So is it morally right/wrong/ambiguous to make sure that someone who qualifies, knows that they qualify?

 

That is quite an interesting question.

If, from a philanthropic kind of view you you want to get as many people as possible, as close as possible to a 'utopian' level, then yes. By all means possible ensure everyone has as much provision as possible. The status quo should be as high as is attainable, and then a little more.

 

I'm not sure where a moral disagreement for not doing this could be justified. It's kind of like the 'no child left behind' principle on a grander scale

 

But at whose 'expense' would that come from? It also doesn't gel very well with survival of the fittest, but I suppose that's what seperates man from beast if you will.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 00:58 ----------

 

All the more case to ring fence disabled benefits and the like and unify all other benefits.

In theory this IDS type universal benefit might work. Don't know too much about the ins and outs, but in 'theory' it sounds much easier to navigate and administer.

 

The whole benefit -and tax- system is absurdly complex, to the point where people need various specialists to navigate through them.

 

The idea which has spawned universal credit is, in my eyes, like a cowardly and bastardised version of the citizens income. Which would be the logical step to take to untangle the web of benefits but would hurt the capitalist sensibilities of some portions of society so is a non starter.

 

A three or four tier CI combined with a sensible stepped tax system would actually end this discussion, you would simply receive all you were entitled to

automatically according to your NI number and bank balance. how you dealt with your needs in life would be your own affair. The only real problem is that to create that level of neutrality would require quite an invasive/transparent approach on an individual circumstantial level.

[Cyclone]

You were lucky, my post was quoted followed by a complete non sequitur.

 

You pretty much said that it was landlords faults that tenants couldn't afford to live in the accommodation they'd chosen. It was closely linked (to the previous sentence) about them being paid more.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 07:48 ----------

 

Where did i say i should be asked what my taxes should be spent on? Show me Cyclone and i shall beg for your forgiveness! though i am not worthy oh great one..

 

That was a question I asked you, the clue was in the question mark...

 

You said

 

I do get rather frustrated that my taxes are being used however the government deems fit.

 

Implying that they shouldn't do "as they see fit", so I asked what you expected instead, you to guide them? So far you've refused to answer or explain.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 07:49 ----------

 

It's not some kind of trick. You wrote it. What does it mean? What do you expect instead?

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 07:49 ----------

 

If the government doesn't get to spend taxes however they see fit, then how should it work?

[tzijlstra]

So create an under-under class. A kind of haves and have-nots within the unemployed class...brilliant idea.

 

I wonder what costs society more? Having well-paid people lose everything and gain crippling debt because they got unemployed for 3 months or having people dependent on the state and refusing to work? Or perhaps both? I wonder what might be a route out of both situations?

 

Fair is almost what we have. It just needs tweaking.

 

What would you tweak dear Ubermaus?

 

If anything INCREASE benefits such as JSA. In countries where there is high income support it is found to actually incentivise people into work.

 

You can, if higher paid people are feeling like they are at least getting something back for paying more.

 

Clearly 50-70 quid a week is not enough...and theres not enough jobs in the economy for full employment anway...were about 3 million short.

 

We've had the unemployment discussion a million times before, but I can't remember whether it was with your or MrSmithy reincarnate #x.

 

It is also irrelevant - the goal is to help people between jobs, not to help them out of jobs.

 

Also - this whole line is a very narrow tangent of the whole discussion.

[Chelle-82]

You pretty much said that it was landlords faults that tenants couldn't afford to live in the accommodation they'd chosen. It was closely linked (to the previous sentence) about them being paid more.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 07:48 ----------

 

 

That was a question I asked you, the clue was in the question mark...

 

You said

 

 

 

Implying that they shouldn't do "as they see fit", so I asked what you expected instead, you to guide them? So far you've refused to answer or explain.

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 07:49 ----------

 

It's not some kind of trick. You wrote it. What does it mean? What do you expect instead?

 

---------- Post added 12-05-2015 at 07:49 ----------

 

If the government doesn't get to spend taxes however they see fit, then how should it work?

 

You just don't quit do you.

 

Anyway, I'm going to make myself a cup of tea and have a digestive biscuit whilst you ponder on what you believe to be the hidden meaning behind my post.

[Cyclone]

I don't think the meaning was hidden at all. I think you meant what you said.

[psynuk]

[/color]If the government doesn't get to spend taxes however they see fit, then how should it work?

 

"I do get rather frustrated that my taxes are being used however the government deems fit.

 

All that said, I would rather pay my taxes and contribute to the 'pot' along with millions of other tax payers in my position"

 

It was obvious, she has some frustration, but ultimately doesn't concern herself that much as to the apportioning, as she's aware she's fortunate.

 

Sometimes Cyclone, your multi-quote argumentlist wrangling is really derailing to a thread.

[SevenRivers]

Picked this up in another thread and thought it was worthy making a new thread about:

 

"I paid into the system, so I should get something back".

 

I've noticed it ever since I moved here, people really do feel entitled to public money, whether it is the NHS, benefits or pensions, but if that is the case, shouldn't people who paid more into the system be getting more out of it?

 

I think what people expect, having paid their taxes for the sake of public services, is that they should receive a decent quality service when they need it, and treated with respect. Not too much to ask for is it.