RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up.

RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thezeppo -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/8/2012 6:08:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule About twentyfive years ago I conceived of a progressive tax system. It would start at whatever politicians deemed basic necessity and would increase with whatever slope of the exponential function they determined. So for example the first two hundred euro earned would be tax free. Then next the progressive tax starts, say one percent increase per hundred euro's per month earned. So if one earns three hundred euros, one pays 1 euro tax. If one earns four hundred euros, one pays 4 euro's tax (i.e. two percent on two hundred euros). If one earns four hundred euros, one pays 9 euros tax. If one earns twelve hundred euros, one pays one hundred euro tax. If one earns 2200 euros, one pays four hundred euros tax. If one earns 5200 euros, one pays 2500 euros tax. If one earns 10200 euros, one pays ten thousand euros tax. No deductions except for gifts. So, say someone earns 10200 euros, but has to pay ten thousand euros in taxes. He now donates one thousand euro's each to the Departments of Defence, Economy, Infrastructure, Police, and to his poor mom. He is then left with 5200 euros to be taxed and pays 2500 euros in taxes, leaving him with 2700 to spend as he pleases. In this scheme minimum wages can be abolished. The consequence of which is that everyone can have a job. So, for those who follow the system there is literally no incentive to work harder and receive a higher paying job as you will just end up 'donating' your money to the government to have a living wage anyway. For those who don't, what's to stop you donating your entire salary to the person at the next desk and vice-versa? The only context I can see this working in is a heavily nationalised society, where relative reputations of jobs are irrelevant and salaries are broadly equal. If that is the society you envision, probably the tax system isn't the best place to start.

Marini -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/8/2012 10:38:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Nobody says being poor doesn't suck. It's supposed to. That's what encourages people to stop. The most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Capitalism requires poverty like a wolf requires prey. Fear of poverty is the whip that gets everyone out of bed in the morning, while excessive reward is what keeps getting the rich out of bed in the morning. As one person moves out of poverty and another person moves into poverty. The problem for western capitalism at the moment is that the majority of the poor used to be exploited foreigners overseas but now western capitalism is increasing poverty at home as capitalism reduces the size of the middleclass by pushing the middleclasses into poverty. [sm=applause.gif] Capitalism indeed increases poverty and also assists in pushing the middleclasses into poverty. Capitalism and unregulated/and unbridled outsourcing have done a smashing job of lowering the standards of living/and the quality of life for many Americans. Now, the chickens are beginning to come home to roost.

absolutchocolat -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 1:05:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: i've been on food stamps, and i budget very well, but $200 a month didn't go far. i couldn't buy a ton of fresh vegetables or quality meats and organic grains with that. if i did, my food stamps would run out halfway through the month. i seriously cut back on meals, and ate lots of ramen noodles. it sucked. This is the part they cant grasp.... or the results. yeah -- high blood pressure, obesity, vitamin deficiencies...oh my! sorry heretic, this gal is not going to eat frozen, high-starch or canned foods loaded with salt and saturated fat. it's a recipe for health problems in the future. yeah. they're cheaper, but at what cost?

tazzygirl -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 1:20:36 AM)
My thoughts exactly. Weigh being able to eat... with being able to be healthy. And then you hear the criticism about the health problems with the poor. But, lets not worry about that. Because, as someone recently said, its supposed to be that way so they wont want to be poor anymore.

Rule -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 4:52:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thezeppo quote: ORIGINAL: Rule About twentyfive years ago I conceived of a progressive tax system. It would start at whatever politicians deemed basic necessity and would increase with whatever slope of the exponential function they determined. So for example the first two hundred euro earned would be tax free. Then next the progressive tax starts, say one percent increase per hundred euro's per month earned. So if one earns three hundred euros, one pays 1 euro tax. If one earns four hundred euros, one pays 4 euro's tax (i.e. two percent on two hundred euros). If one earns four hundred euros, one pays 9 euros tax. If one earns twelve hundred euros, one pays one hundred euro tax. If one earns 2200 euros, one pays four hundred euros tax. If one earns 5200 euros, one pays 2500 euros tax. If one earns 10200 euros, one pays ten thousand euros tax. No deductions except for gifts. So, say someone earns 10200 euros, but has to pay ten thousand euros in taxes. He now donates one thousand euro's each to the Departments of Defence, Economy, Infrastructure, Police, and to his poor mom. He is then left with 5200 euros to be taxed and pays 2500 euros in taxes, leaving him with 2700 to spend as he pleases. In this scheme minimum wages can be abolished. The consequence of which is that everyone can have a job. So, for those who follow the system there is literally no incentive to work harder and receive a higher paying job as you will just end up 'donating' your money to the government to have a living wage anyway. For those who don't, what's to stop you donating your entire salary to the person at the next desk and vice-versa? The only context I can see this working in is a heavily nationalised society, where relative reputations of jobs are irrelevant and salaries are broadly equal. If that is the society you envision, probably the tax system isn't the best place to start. Most people earn low wages; so most people will have an incentive to earn higher wages. This scheme promotes small businesses and therefore a large middle class. This scheme decreases the social instability caused by few people being extremely rich and many people living in poverty. People who donate parts of their income to government departments in order to lower their taxes thereby have a large influence on how their money is spent, which they do not have if they simply pay taxes and let politicians decide how to spend that. Sure you may donate your entire salary to the person at the next desk. I don't care. Be sure that you have some canned food in house. I forgot to mention a voting compensation for the paying of taxes: Each person has one vote, incremented by say the square of the percentage of tax paid. (The exact factor of increment to be determined by politicians in Parliament.) This gives people an added incentive to earn a lot of money and to pay a lot of taxes. It also gives the people who pay the most taxes the most political leverage. So say a person earns 1200 euros per month. In this example he pays ten percent tax on one thousand euros = one hundred euros of tax. The increment to his basic one vote is ten percent squared = one hundred percent = one vote. So in an election he can vote twice. Say a person earns 5200 euros per month. In this example he pays fifty percent tax on five thousand euros = 2500 euros of tax. The increment to his basic one vote is fifty percent squared = 2500 percent = 25 votes. So in an election he can vote 26 times. Say a person earns 10200 euros per month. In this example he pays one hundred percent tax on 10000 euros = 10000 euros of tax. The increment to his basic one vote is one hundred percent squared = 10000 percent = 100 votes. So in an election he can vote 101 times.

Yachtie -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 7:56:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: thezeppo quote: ORIGINAL: Rule About twentyfive years ago I conceived of a progressive tax system. It would start at whatever politicians deemed basic necessity and would increase with whatever slope of the exponential function they determined. So for example the first two hundred euro earned would be tax free. Then next the progressive tax starts, say one percent increase per hundred euro's per month earned. So if one earns three hundred euros, one pays 1 euro tax. If one earns four hundred euros, one pays 4 euro's tax (i.e. two percent on two hundred euros). If one earns four hundred euros, one pays 9 euros tax. If one earns twelve hundred euros, one pays one hundred euro tax. If one earns 2200 euros, one pays four hundred euros tax. If one earns 5200 euros, one pays 2500 euros tax. If one earns 10200 euros, one pays ten thousand euros tax. No deductions except for gifts. So, say someone earns 10200 euros, but has to pay ten thousand euros in taxes. He now donates one thousand euro's each to the Departments of Defence, Economy, Infrastructure, Police, and to his poor mom. He is then left with 5200 euros to be taxed and pays 2500 euros in taxes, leaving him with 2700 to spend as he pleases. In this scheme minimum wages can be abolished. The consequence of which is that everyone can have a job. So, for those who follow the system there is literally no incentive to work harder and receive a higher paying job as you will just end up 'donating' your money to the government to have a living wage anyway. For those who don't, what's to stop you donating your entire salary to the person at the next desk and vice-versa? The only context I can see this working in is a heavily nationalised society, where relative reputations of jobs are irrelevant and salaries are broadly equal. If that is the society you envision, probably the tax system isn't the best place to start. Most people earn low wages; so most people will have an incentive to earn higher wages. This scheme promotes small businesses and therefore a large middle class. This scheme decreases the social instability caused by few people being extremely rich and many people living in poverty. People who donate parts of their income to government departments in order to lower their taxes thereby have a large influence on how their money is spent, which they do not have if they simply pay taxes and let politicians decide how to spend that. Sure you may donate your entire salary to the person at the next desk. I don't care. Be sure that you have some canned food in house. I forgot to mention a voting compensation for the paying of taxes: Each person has one vote, incremented by say the square of the percentage of tax paid. (The exact factor of increment to be determined by politicians in Parliament.) This gives people an added incentive to earn a lot of money and to pay a lot of taxes. It also gives the people who pay the most taxes the most political leverage. So say a person earns 1200 euros per month. In this example he pays ten percent tax on one thousand euros = one hundred euros of tax. The increment to his basic one vote is ten percent squared = one hundred percent = one vote. So in an election he can vote twice. Say a person earns 5200 euros per month. In this example he pays fifty percent tax on five thousand euros = 2500 euros of tax. The increment to his basic one vote is fifty percent squared = 2500 percent = 25 votes. So in an election he can vote 26 times. Say a person earns 10200 euros per month. In this example he pays one hundred percent tax on 10000 euros = 10000 euros of tax. The increment to his basic one vote is one hundred percent squared = 10000 percent = 100 votes. So in an election he can vote 101 times. Rule, couple questions. 1. How large of a BIG TAX payer population (holding sufficient votes) would it require to offset the voting of the middle / lower class? 2. If said BIG TAXpayers held a large enough voting block, what would be the first thing they would vote on?

TheHeretic -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 8:50:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl But, lets not worry about that. Because, as someone recently said, its supposed to be that way so they wont want to be poor anymore. It's motivating you to chase after your settlement, isn't it?

tazzygirl -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 9:49:49 AM)
Im not chasing anything, Rich. In fact, they are hounding me. [;)]

TheHeretic -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 9:57:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Im not chasing anything, Rich. In fact, they are hounding me. [;)] So the experience of living poor is motivating you to hold out for even more money, huh? Thanks for making my point, even while trying to snark at it.

tazzygirl -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 9:59:16 AM)
lol.... how little you know about lawsuits. There is no holding out. There is a set amount.. at least here. Once I am released, I will go back to work. They will cut me a check... with most of that going back to the state. Whats left is going to family we took out loans with. So, Rich, your assumptions are baseless..... as usual.

MariaB -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 10:35:22 AM)
Gone are the working classes in the UK or at least that's what our government would like to promote. We are all middle class now darling [8\|] except of course for those 'Chavs', you know the ones that turn up drunk at the benefit office on a Wednesday morning, cig in mouth and half a dozen children in tow, all to different fathers of course! Perhaps we should remind ourselves that disdain and name calling of those unfortunate enough to be on welfare is a prejudiced. Its as prejudiced as being racist and yet this prejudice is promoted by main stream media and prime time TV who continually try to plant that seed in our brain. Reality tv programme like the one mentioned early in this thread, amuse the sudo middle class audiences by shaming and belittling those less fortunate than themselves. Jeremy Kyle is all about destroying lives for the entertainment of mass viewing. Its no better than the entertainment that went on back in the Roman times at the Colosseum. Programs like Wayne and Waynetta who are caricatures of what we have come to recognize as chavs, reiterates that there really is a problem out there with people on benefit. The government speeches about the benefit fraudsters is nothing more than selective propaganda. Its all about defending the wealth of the upper classes. If you can maintain an environment where the middle classes are terrified of the working classes then you have a divide and a divided society is less of a threat.

Phoenixpower -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 11:03:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC That? You mean things aren't working out so well in Germany.. That role model of austerity that everyne including the Germans like to point to? I'd rather look at Iceland who threw the crooks in jail and bailed out the victims. Yeah, the German model is problematic: their poorest are sliding down from a European lower class standard of living to an American middle class standard of living, which isn't the case in Iceland, Norway, Sweden or Denmark, at the very least, all of which have only a fraction of what the Germans have in terms of skills, natural resources and the like, plus fewer people with a more rural population density (which is more expensive to deal with). IWYW, — Awsad. Not quite sure if my reply is from any help, but I was a bit irritated about how small the benefits are in the UK compared to Germany. When I was out of work during my last few months in the UK I received 270 pound benefits per months, after having payed in for 6.5 years....over here in Germany, once I worked for at least 12 months I get 60 or 66% of my last salary per month for 6 months and that level for even 12 months, if I paid in for 24 months non stop....after that time I would fall here in the lowest level which is named Hartz IV and there I still get 374 or 378 Euro....which is still a fair bit more than the 270 pound in the UK (on top of a cheaper living than the cost of living is in the UK). When I returned to Germany with no job offer my job centre tried to tell me that I won't get a penny for 4 months, cause it is my fault to come back without having a job here at first (so they won't pay for 3 months) and on top of it they would not pay my healthcare and money into my rent pot (which is altogether about another months of benefits)...but somehow, once I replied to her cooly that I will be happy to let a judge decide if her decision is correct about that, once it is final...she changed her mind and paid me almost 2200 Euro 4 days later...the money she was holding back since months...seems, she did not like my idea of having a judge decide if her decision is right lol (due to claiming benefits the court process would not have cost me a cent and its to read in the news herer often, that many benefits people receive wrong assessments and lose out from it....and I made clear to her that I am not willing to belong to that group of having had a wrong assessment thanks to her)... If I would now become unemployed I would be entitled again to the 60 or 66% of last salary for 6 months as I (by now) paid in again more than 12 months into our system...

Rule -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 11:31:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Rule, couple questions. 1. How large of a BIG TAX payer population (holding sufficient votes) would it require to offset the voting of the middle / lower class? 2. If said BIG TAXpayers held a large enough voting block, what would be the first thing they would vote on? 1. Math is one of my weak points and that is what I stumbled on back then. However, I am sure that my model can be translated into mathematics and subsequently into a computer program that can show the results for all the variables. 2. I have no idea, but it will be interesting to set up a couple of hundred small scale experiments involving as many small towns and see what happens.

thezeppo -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 11:45:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Most people earn low wages; so most people will have an incentive to earn higher wages. This scheme promotes small businesses and therefore a large middle class. This scheme decreases the social instability caused by few people being extremely rich and many people living in poverty. People who donate parts of their income to government departments in order to lower their taxes thereby have a large influence on how their money is spent, which they do not have if they simply pay taxes and let politicians decide how to spend that. Sure you may donate your entire salary to the person at the next desk. I don't care. Be sure that you have some canned food in house. I forgot to mention a voting compensation for the paying of taxes: Each person has one vote, incremented by say the square of the percentage of tax paid. (The exact factor of increment to be determined by politicians in Parliament.) This gives people an added incentive to earn a lot of money and to pay a lot of taxes. It also gives the people who pay the most taxes the most political leverage. So say a person earns 1200 euros per month. In this example he pays ten percent tax on one thousand euros = one hundred euros of tax. The increment to his basic one vote is ten percent squared = one hundred percent = one vote. So in an election he can vote twice. Say a person earns 5200 euros per month. In this example he pays fifty percent tax on five thousand euros = 2500 euros of tax. The increment to his basic one vote is fifty percent squared = 2500 percent = 25 votes. So in an election he can vote 26 times. Say a person earns 10200 euros per month. In this example he pays one hundred percent tax on 10000 euros = 10000 euros of tax. The increment to his basic one vote is one hundred percent squared = 10000 percent = 100 votes. So in an election he can vote 101 times. Ah, that all makes perfect sense now, so obviously I'm completely against it. I wasn't talking about donating your entire salary to the person at the next desk for nothing by the way - it would be in exchange for their salary so neither would pay any tax. If you don't care about it then I could see a fair few people exploiting that particular loophole. So a single group have permanent influence in the government through having more votes and controlling the budget? That seems like a step backwards to me. I love the incentive not to be poor idea. Surprisingly enough being poor is an incentive not to be poor by itself, people won't stop being poor just because you made it even less fun. I can't see this decreasing social instability either. Can you imagine children in schools being motivated by the prospect of loads of votes when they're older? Particularly those whose parents have one apiece? Will big companies really accept moves to promote small business having spent the last 20+ years driving them all out of business? You may well create a more level playing field in terms of rich vs poor, but if money is traded for political influence then the argument becomes enfranchised vs disenfranchised. Same instability, the same two groups of people, just different language. Sorry bud, but this system is just begging for revolution.

Rule -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 11:51:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thezeppo I wasn't talking about donating your entire salary to the person at the next desk for nothing by the way - it would be in exchange for their salary so neither would pay any tax. Okay. So say that I earn 10200 euro's and donate the lot to you. You donate the 5200 euro's you earn to me. Now come the taxes: You pay ten thousand euro in taxes on the 10200 you got from me and are left with 200 euro's. I pay 2500 in taxes on the 5200 I got from you and am left with 2700 euro's.

Rule -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 11:56:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thezeppo So a single group have permanent influence in the government through having more votes and controlling the budget? That seems like a step backwards to me. They control some of the budget: what is received by way of taxes. They clearly are capable in some way, or they would not earn that much so the country would be ruled by the more capable. That seems to me to be an improvement.

erieangel -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 1:17:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls I don't care what your evidence is. When 47% (fact) don't pay any U.S. income taxes then they are freeloaders & using the gov to subsidize their lifestyle. e.g. smart phones, new cars, nice clothes... I make 20 grand a year, am single with one dependent because my son is disabled; therefore I do not pay federal taxes. My income is simply too low require me to do so. However, money is taken out of my check each and every pay period in withholding (in case I do end up owing something; I usually get every penny of that back). I do own my home and it is without a mortgage because my grandmother gave it to me. I had cost me over 2 grand to clear the deed when she died and her name is still on it because putting it solely in my name will cost me even more. I also bought new a car this past year--it cost all of 15 grand. Are you saying I shouldn't be able to have a cell phone (which is my primary means of communication since I do not have a land line), own my home and continue pay rent, and shouldn't be entitled to reliable transportation when I do work hard for my money as little as it is?

Yachtie -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 1:37:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Rule, couple questions. 2. If said BIG TAXpayers held a large enough voting block, what would be the first thing they would vote on? 2. I have no idea, but it will be interesting to set up a couple of hundred small scale experiments involving as many small towns and see what happens. Of course you do. At 10200 Euro income and above all is confiscated as tax but 200 Euro. The simple fact is that your harder working gains you nothing more in personal wealth and standard of living than one who works half as hard. Thus you give it to the government to reduce your tax liability and adjust your standard of living (disposable income) to the maximum allowable by law. You'd vote to keep more. You worked hard for it.

TheHeretic -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 1:45:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel I make 20 grand a year, am single with one dependent because my son is disabled; therefore I do not pay federal taxes. My income is simply too low require me to do so. However, money is taken out of my check each and every pay period in withholding (in case I do end up owing something; I usually get every penny of that back). I do own my home and it is without a mortgage because my grandmother gave it to me. I had cost me over 2 grand to clear the deed when she died and her name is still on it because putting it solely in my name will cost me even more. I also bought new a car this past year--it cost all of 15 grand. Are you saying I shouldn't be able to have a cell phone (which is my primary means of communication since I do not have a land line), own my home and continue pay rent, and shouldn't be entitled to reliable transportation when I do work hard for my money as little as it is? This is exactly what I was describing in a recent thread, Erie. Such a life as you describe might be below the average achievement level in our country, but for those living in the sort of conditions that come to mind when we say, "poverty," that's a pretty damn good deal. I'd have called it, "the good life," back in the year when the Social Security statement says I earned a grand total of $1,656.

tazzygirl -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/9/2012 3:09:18 PM)
And just why is her standard of living not in the "dirt floors and begging on street corners" kind of poverty you seem to be insisting upon before someone can be considered poor? Because rules changed so people dont live like that again.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125