The iPhone is doomed, and Spain as well
-
@flabdablet said:
@PJH said:
No, because being rich means you can afford the kid without sponging off other taxpayers. I'll thank you to keep your straw men to yourself.if you're that rich, you're not part of the problem to begin with
...because being rich automatically makes you an exemplary parent?
-
@flabdablet said:
@PJH said:
"The problem" he refers to is wasteful government spending. Don't muddy the issue by throwing a bunch of other unrelated stuff in there. We all want all parents to treat their kids right, but that's nothing to do with taxes/welfare.if you're that rich, you're not part of the problem to begin with
...because being rich automatically makes you an exemplary parent?
I don't think you've thought this through.
-
@PJH said:
being rich means you can afford the kid without sponging off other taxpayers.
Because being rich automatically means you pay a fair share of taxes?
I don't think you've thought this through.
-
@KillaCoda said:
"The problem" he refers to is wasteful government spending.
Right, because helping single mothers feed their kids is wasteful by definition, because single mothers are useless bitches who contribute nothing to society beyond the hungry mouths of their children.
Glad I don't live on your planet.
-
@KillaCoda said:
"The problem" he refers to is wasteful government spending.
And his proposed alternative to welfare for single mothers is confiscation of their kids. Bet he hasn't costed that properly, either.
-
@flabdablet said:
@PJH said:
being rich means you can afford the kid without sponging off other taxpayers.
Because being rich automatically means you pay a fair share of taxes?
I don't think you've thought this through.
The problem is not what KillaCoda is his limited wisdom says; the problem is just the one of a single mother with financial trouble. That's a problem.
If you're rich, you don't have financial problems. I think.
So a rich single mother is not part of that problem.
-
@flabdablet said:
@KillaCoda said:
Wow you sure like freaking out and putting words in people's mouths."The problem" he refers to is wasteful government spending.
Right, because helping single mothers feed their kids is wasteful by definition, because single mothers are useless bitches who contribute nothing to society beyond the hungry mouths of their children.
Glad I don't live on your planet.
If a woman can't afford a child, she shouldn't have one.
If she has one anyway, it should be taken from her. There's plenty of willing foster parents around.
Why do I have to pay for her poor choices?
-
@dhromed said:
KillaCoda is his limited wisdom
Eh. Just sharing my view. Not like any of us here will ever get to actually change anything about how the system works. It's enjoyable (for me anyway) to discuss such things.
-
@KillaCoda said:
There's plenty of willing foster parents around.
Cite, please.
-
@KillaCoda said:
If a woman can't afford a child, she shouldn't have one.
If she has one anyway, it should be taken from her.
Because that policy has always worked out so well.
-
@flabdablet said:
@KillaCoda said:
UK: 48,417 in 2011. US: 42,058.There's plenty of willing foster parents around.
Cite, please.
Of course, not all of those would necessarily foster, but it gives some sort of idea of the sort of demand there could be.
The alternative, is what we have at the moment - and which you appear to approve of - too many spongers sucking the teat of thewelfare statetaxpayer at the expense of those who actually go out and earn a living.
-
@KillaCoda said:
Not like any of us here will ever get to actually change anything about how the system works. It's enjoyable (for me anyway) to discuss such things.
Funny. That's exactly the reason why I always find them a little tiresome.
-
@flabdablet said:
@KillaCoda said:
How irrelevant can you get? That's a story about girls from the 50s and 60s when society and culture were much different.If a woman can't afford a child, she shouldn't have one.
If she has one anyway, it should be taken from her.
Because that policy has always worked out so well.
Todays women have access to all the information, medical care and birth control they need.
If they still choose to have a kid they can't afford, then too goddam bad! Take that kid, put in a better home, and STOP STEALING MY MONEY to subsidize this crap. YOU can pay as much as you like to selfish people. I don't want to.
-
@PJH said:
@flabdablet said:
Yup pretty much.@KillaCoda said:
UK: 48,417 in 2011. US: 42,058.There's plenty of willing foster parents around.
Cite, please.
Of course, not all of those would necessarily foster, but it gives some sort of idea of the sort of demand there could be.
The alternative, is what we have at the moment - and which you appear to approve of - too many spongers sucking the teat of thewelfare statetaxpayer at the expense of those who actually go out and earn a living.
-
@PJH said:
The alternative, is what we have at the moment - and which you appear to approve of - too many spongers sucking the teat of the
welfare statetaxpayer at the expense of those who actually go out and earn a living.It's a really wicked problem. Raising a child by yourself is really difficult (hell, it's difficult with two parents). But the problem is less the rich / successful moms. In addition to the drain on the rest of us, the children are growing up to be disasters in pretty awful numbers. Of course, you don't want them to starve, but welfare tends to increase dependency and sense of entitlement and a permanent underclass, as previously discussed. I guess you could opt for the Margaret Mead option and just kill the kids off before they become a problem, but that has a few draw backs. Probably Chris Rock has the real solution: "PUT THE DICK DOWN, BITCH."
Basically, it's a problem for which there isn't an acceptable solution external to the people engaging in this behavior. I suppose it'll mostly correct itself when everything falls apart enough (war, economic catastrophe) so that it's physically impossible to keep the support system going.
-
@boomzilla said:
I suppose it'll mostly correct itself when everything falls apart enough (war, economic catastrophe) so that it's physically impossible to keep the support system going.
Social issues are hard. Let's go to war!
-
@PJH said:
@flabdablet said:
@KillaCoda said:
UK: 48,417 in 2011. US: 42,058.There's plenty of willing foster parents around.
Cite, please.
Of course, not all of those would necessarily foster, but it gives some sort of idea of the sort of demand there could be.
The alternative, is what we have at the moment - and which you appear to approve of - too many spongers sucking the teat of thewelfare statetaxpayer at the expense of those who actually go out and earn a living.The proportion of potential foster parents in the general population is easily seen to be too low to meet existing demand, let alone the increased demand that would result from some kind of forced-removal policy for low-income single mothers. What evidence do you have to suggest that it's any higher among those seeking fertility treatment, or even that denying such treatment would make it any higher? I don't believe you have any. I think you're just pulling uninformed opinions out of your arse and bloviating about them.
I also don't believe you have ever bothered to work out what proportion of your own income ends up in the pockets of people whose attitude toward work you disapprove of.
At its root, I see no difference at all between some hypothetical sponger's "fuck you, I got mine" attitude and your own. Both are repugnant, and yours has the added stench of unexamined privilege.
-
@KillaCoda said:
YOU can pay as much as you like to selfish people. I don't want to.
You are of course perfectly free to take that position.
And I am perfectly free to think less of you as a result than I would of the stereotypical shell-suited fag-reeking kid-belting drunken chav, because the underlying attitude is identical.
-
@flabdablet said:
@KillaCoda said:
YOU can pay as much as you like to selfish people. I don't want to.
You are of course perfectly free to take that position.
And I am perfectly free to think less of you as a result than I would of the stereotypical shell-suited fag-reeking kid-belting drunken chav, because the underlying attitude is identical.
Interesting to see a self-righteous bleeding heart commie using homophobic and racist insults. (The racist part is "kid-belting drunken" which is clearly a reference to the Irish people).
-
@dhromed said:
Social issues are hard. Let's go to war!
Yeah! And that's gonna be expensive, so before we do it we should totes stop taxing rich people! Make the fucking sponging single mothers fund it. That'll show those bitches we mean business!
-
@Ronald said:
@flabdablet said:
@KillaCoda said:
YOU can pay as much as you like to selfish people. I don't want to.
You are of course perfectly free to take that position.
And I am perfectly free to think less of you as a result than I would of the stereotypical shell-suited fag-reeking kid-belting drunken chav, because the underlying attitude is identical.
Interesting to see a self-righteous bleeding heart commie using homophobic and racist insults. (The racist part is "kid-belting drunken" which is clearly a reference to the Irish people).
Predictable to see a self-righteous fascist Internet windbag conspicuously fail to grasp the meaning of the word "stereotypical", presumably because it has more than two syllables.
-
@flabdablet said:
@Ronald said:
@flabdablet said:
@KillaCoda said:
YOU can pay as much as you like to selfish people. I don't want to.
You are of course perfectly free to take that position.
And I am perfectly free to think less of you as a result than I would of the stereotypical shell-suited fag-reeking kid-belting drunken chav, because the underlying attitude is identical.
Interesting to see a self-righteous bleeding heart commie using homophobic and racist insults. (The racist part is "kid-belting drunken" which is clearly a reference to the Irish people).
Predictable to see a self-righteous fascist Internet windbag conspicuously fail to grasp the meaning of the word "stereotypical", presumably because it has more than two syllables.
Here is a picture of you.
-
-
@flabdablet said:
@dhromed said:
Social issues are hard. Let's go to war!
Yeah! And that's gonna be expensive, so before we do it we should totes stop taxing rich people! Make the fucking sponging single mothers fund it. That'll show those bitches we mean business!
Why is it that the Marxists never have a sense of humor?
-
@boomzilla said:
@flabdablet said:
@dhromed said:
Social issues are hard. Let's go to war!
Yeah! And that's gonna be expensive, so before we do it we should totes stop taxing rich people! Make the fucking sponging single mothers fund it. That'll show those bitches we mean business!
Why is it that the Marxists never have a sense of humor?
Perhaps if Republicans were better able to recognize jokes, they'd laugh at them instead of electing them.
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
@flabdablet said:
@dhromed said:
Social issues are hard. Let's go to war!
Yeah! And that's gonna be expensive, so before we do it we should totes stop taxing rich people! Make the fucking sponging single mothers fund it. That'll show those bitches we mean business!
Why is it that the Marxists never have a sense of humor?
Perhaps if Republicans were better able to recognize jokes, they'd laugh at them instead of electing them.
The only person on this forum who is worse at making snappy replies is Ben L. and we're talking about a high school kid that goes shopping at Sears with his mom.
-
@Ronald said:
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
@flabdablet said:
@dhromed said:
Social issues are hard. Let's go to war!
Yeah! And that's gonna be expensive, so before we do it we should totes stop taxing rich people! Make the fucking sponging single mothers fund it. That'll show those bitches we mean business!
Why is it that the Marxists never have a sense of humor?
Perhaps if Republicans were better able to recognize jokes, they'd laugh at them instead of electing them.
The only person on this forum who is worse at making snappy replies is Ben L. and we're talking about a high school kid that goes shopping at Sears with his mom.
function ignore(user) { function parse(path) { var parts = []]; if (path) parts = path.match(/^([a-z]*)(\.([a-z]*))?(>([^/]*))?(\/(.*))?$/i); return { tagName: parts[1], className: parts[3], innerHTML: parts[5], tail: parts[7] }; } function match(node, filter) { var selector = parse(filter); if (selector.tagName && !(node.tagName && node.tagName.toLowerCase() == selector.tagName)) return false; if (selector.className && node.className != selector.className) return false; if (selector.innerHTML && node.innerHTML != selector.innerHTML) return false; if (selector.tail) { if (node.hasChildNodes()) { for (var child = node.firstChild; child; child = child.nextSibling) { if (match(child, selector.tail)) return true; } } return false; } return true; } function select(filter) { var selector = parse(filter); var candidates = document.getElementsByTagName(selector.tagName); var selected = []]; for (var i = 0; i < candidates.length; ++i) { if (match(candidates[i], filter)) { selected.push(candidates[i]); } } return selected; } function remove(nodes) { for (var i = 0; i < nodes.length; i++) { nodes[i].parentNode.removeChild(nodes[i]); } } remove( select('li/div.ForumPostArea/table/tbody/tr/td.ForumPostUserArea/div.ForumPostUserContent/ul.ForumPostUserPropertyList/li.ForumPostUserName/a>' + user). concat(select('blockquote/div/strong>' + user + ':')) ); } ignore('Ronald');
-
@flabdablet said:
bloviating
Have you found a shiny new word of the month? You certainly appear to be using it a lot in your argumenta ad hominem. If you want a suggestion for next month, may I suggest "feckless," or "scrofulous"
@flabdablet said:I also don't believe you have ever bothered to work out what proportion of your own income ends up in the pockets of people whose attitude toward work you disapprove of.
More than 50% of my gross income.
Lets start with 20% Income tax, 12% employee's national insurance and 13.8% employer's national insurance (leaving roughly 54%) <a href="https://www.gov.uk/vat-rates>20% VAT on what remains leaving roughly 43%. This is before I get onto things like the so called 'sin taxes' (duty, excise, "green" etc.) which apply on top of that. Oh, and and top of that tax system, we have things like Council Tax which could easily accounts for another 5% of post-tax income.
You are more than welcome to explain to me why some (non-hyothetical, given your comment below) 'breeder' should be paid by the state to have yet more children at my expense.@flabdablet said:
I put in the effort to earn a wage, a substantial amount of which is stolen by the government to pay for the spongers.At its root, I see no difference at all between some hypothetical sponger's "fuck you, I got mine" attitude and your own. Both are repugnant, and yours has the added stench of unexamined privilege.
You have yet to explain why you apparently think this is a good thing, and appear to insist instead on picking random methodologies from this page on which to supply material to your increasingly uninformed Poe-like posts.
-
The bananas I biuthg two days ago technically aren't fully ripened yet, but the fruit inside is soft enough for consumption.
I tried to write "bought" there. I really did.
-
@boomzilla said:
Why is it that the Marxists never have a sense of humor?
He was responding to my joke with parallel sarcasm.
-
@flabdablet said:
@Ronald said:
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
@flabdablet said:
@dhromed said:
Social issues are hard. Let's go to war!
Yeah! And that's gonna be expensive, so before we do it we should totes stop taxing rich people! Make the fucking sponging single mothers fund it. That'll show those bitches we mean business!
Why is it that the Marxists never have a sense of humor?
Perhaps if Republicans were better able to recognize jokes, they'd laugh at them instead of electing them.
The only person on this forum who is worse at making snappy replies is Ben L. and we're talking about a high school kid that goes shopping at Sears with his mom.
function ignore(user) { function parse(path) { var parts = []; if (path) parts = path.match(/^([a-z]*)(\.([a-z]*))?(>([^/]*))?(\/(.*))?$/i); return { tagName: parts[1], className: parts[3], innerHTML: parts[5], tail: parts[7] }; } function match(node, filter) { var selector = parse(filter); if (selector.tagName && !(node.tagName && node.tagName.toLowerCase() == selector.tagName)) return false; if (selector.className && node.className != selector.className) return false; if (selector.innerHTML && node.innerHTML != selector.innerHTML) return false; if (selector.tail) { if (node.hasChildNodes()) { for (var child = node.firstChild; child; child = child.nextSibling) { if (match(child, selector.tail)) return true; } } return false; } return true; } function select(filter) { var selector = parse(filter); var candidates = document.getElementsByTagName(selector.tagName); var selected = []; for (var i = 0; i < candidates.length; ++i) { if (match(candidates[i], filter)) { selected.push(candidates[i]); } } return selected; } function remove(nodes) { for (var i = 0; i < nodes.length; i++) { nodes[i].parentNode.removeChild(nodes[i]); } } remove( select('li/div.ForumPostArea/table/tbody/tr/td.ForumPostUserArea/div.ForumPostUserContent/ul.ForumPostUserPropertyList/li.ForumPostUserName/a>' + user). concat(select('blockquote/div/strong>' + user + ':')) ); } ignore('Ronald');Q.E.D.
Also: did you generate that garbage code by hand or was this something you found on the IRC #l33tc0d3rl0l channel? In either case. bravo.
-
@flabdablet said:
@KillaCoda said:
How about I stop funding these people (cos I hate it) and you fund them twice as much to make up the difference (since you love it)?YOU can pay as much as you like to selfish people. I don't want to.
You are of course perfectly free to take that position.
And I am perfectly free to think less of you as a result than I would of the stereotypical shell-suited fag-reeking kid-belting drunken chav, because the underlying attitude is identical.
I'll be happier, you'll be happier, and scumbags can keep spawning for more free monies. Everybody wins?
-
@KillaCoda said:
@flabdablet said:
@KillaCoda said:
How about I stop funding these people (cos I hate it) and you fund them twice as much to make up the difference (since you love it)?YOU can pay as much as you like to selfish people. I don't want to.
You are of course perfectly free to take that position.
And I am perfectly free to think less of you as a result than I would of the stereotypical shell-suited fag-reeking kid-belting drunken chav, because the underlying attitude is identical.
I'll be happier, you'll be happier, and scumbags can keep spawning for more free monies. Everybody wins?I kinda lost track of who's who, but if you live in the USA it's pretty easy to pay a very tiny amount of taxes if you are a contractor. It's less frustrating to see what the government does with the money (like replacing silverware stolen from the White House) when you don't foot the bill.
-
@PJH said:
@flabdablet said:
I also don't believe you have ever bothered to work out what proportion of your own income ends up in the pockets of people whose attitude toward work you disapprove of.
More than 50% of my gross income.
Lets start with 20% Income tax, 12% employee's national insurance and 13.8% employer's national insurance (leaving roughly 54%) 20% VAT on what remains leaving roughly 43%. This is before I get onto things like the so called 'sin taxes' (duty, excise, "green" etc.) which apply on top of that. Oh, and and top of that tax system, we have things like Council Tax which could easily accounts for another 5% of post-tax income.So in fact you haven't bothered; you've failed to multiply your result by the proportion of taxation revenue spent on welfare, then multiply that by the proportion of welfare recipients you have evidence are sponging. Protip: spin-heavy anecdotes in the Daily Mail don't count as evidence.
@PJH said:
I put in the effort to earn a wage, a substantial amount of which is stolen by the government
The fact that paying tax is required of you does not make it theft. Arguing that it does makes you look like a privileged, entitled, self-righteous, clueless prick.
@PJH said:
You have yet to explain why you apparently think this is a good thing
Show me where I ever said that sponging on welfare is a good thing. Can't? Didn't think so.
Now show me why you think it's such a serious problem as to make it worth riding roughshod over the human rights of single mothers and their children to fix.
-
@Ronald said:
I kinda lost track of who's who, but if you live in the USA it's pretty easy to pay a very tiny amount of taxes if you are a contractor. It's less frustrating to see what the government does with the money (like replacing silverware stolen from the White House) when you don't foot the bill.
Living in Ireland, can't really (legally) avoid or minimise taxes here. Far too much fun stuff for our government to waste money on. €150 billion bank bailouts woo!
-
@KillaCoda said:
How about I stop funding these people (cos I hate it) and you fund them twice as much to make up the difference (since you love it)?
I'll be happier, you'll be happier, and scumbags can keep spawning for more free monies.How about you STFU and keep paying your fair share? For somebody who objects to freeloaders, you're remarkably keen to be seen as one.
-
@flabdablet said:
@KillaCoda said:
Lol. Nice comeback. "SHUT THE FUCK UP AND DO AS I SAY AND ENJOY HAVING YOUR MONEY STOLEN, ASSHOLE!" Yeah, you really get off on telling people what to do, spending other people's money, and screaming abuse at anyone who disagrees, don't you?How about I stop funding these people (cos I hate it) and you fund them twice as much to make up the difference (since you love it)?
I'll be happier, you'll be happier, and scumbags can keep spawning for more free monies.How about you STFU and keep paying your fair share? For somebody who objects to freeloaders, you're remarkably keen to be seen as one.
I'm a freeloader because... I work hard and earn my own money? You aren't even trying to make sense anymore, are you? Actually I'm thinking you're just trolling at this stage... if you are, bravo, I believe(d) it for way too long :P
-
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
Why is it that the Marxists never have a sense of humor?
He was responding to my joke with parallel sarcasm.I know. I was just pointing out that he wasn't very good at it. He has a very weak grip on reality.
-
@flabdablet said:
Now show me why you think it's such a serious problem as to make it worth riding roughshod over the human rights of single mothers and their children to fix.
Can you elaborate on the human rights being trampled here? I guess we're talking about the right of a parent to keep custody of their child. At what point does a parent's neglect of their duties entitle or oblige the rest of us to protect the child? Is there one? I guess most people would draw it before physical abuse. What about setting the kid up to be a failure by example? I am loathe to give the state this sort of power, and yet it is a great tragedy, perpetuated and encouraged by policies meant to help people.
If you meant some sort of basic income fantasy, then fuck off.
-
@flabdablet said:
Now show me why you think it's such a serious problem as to make it worth riding roughshod over the human rights of single mothers and their children to fix.
Oh for fucks sake. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Would a household have to earn £41,000 to match a family on benefits? - answer - yes, until the cap came in this week, then it went down to £35,000.
Are half of British households a burden on the state? - answer - not quite - in 2010/11, 39.6% of non-retired households were a net recipient of money from the 'taxpayer' in that they paid less tax overall than received in benefits.
What's the average household income for a household not from benefits? - answer - £32,000 in 2010/11
Now - I repeat: wiithout getting too liberal about it, please tell me why you appear to think that this situation is a good thing, and all those perceiving a problem in this arrangement and want it corrected are Wrong™?
@flabdablet said:Show me where I ever said that sponging on welfare is a good thing. Can't? Didn't think so.
Your whole argument on this thread appears to be predicated on the fact that it's bad to prevent those sponging off taxpayers from doing so. You're certainly arguing against all those that want some moderation in the welfare state (i.e. not just the ones using hyperbole like I have been.)
-
@PJH said:
@flabdablet said:
...
Now - I repeat: wiithout getting too liberal about it, please tell me why you appear to think that this situation is a good thing, and all those perceiving a problem in this arrangement and want it corrected are Wrong™?He likes to have the appearance of caring for people more than you do.
-
@boomzilla said:
What about setting the kid up to be a failure by example?
That's a borderline philosophical thing to determine. Can't really use that as a criterium for such massive interference.
@boomzilla said:
He likes to have the appearance of caring for people more than you do.
What is caring for people? "I (the local authority) love people, so I am taking your child because it's best for all parties now go to sleep little civilian"? That's also pretty philosophical. And clearly antithetical to freedom.
I'm in camp "I love people therefore I wish to provide all with resources to make it".
-
@boomzilla said:
@PJH said:
It's not working. At least not from where I'm sitting - he's coming across to me as one of the people who would lose out if we started requiring a majority of the population to actually take some responsibility for their lives instead of expecting the government to do it for them, currently funded, of course, by those who do take some responsibility in their lives.@flabdablet said:
...
Now - I repeat: wiithout getting too liberal about it, please tell me why you appear to think that this situation is a good thing, and all those perceiving a problem in this arrangement and want it corrected are Wrong™?He likes to have the appearance of caring for people more than you do.
-
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
What about setting the kid up to be a failure by example?
That's a borderline philosophical thing to determine. Can't really use that as a criterium for such massive interference.I agree. But consider the case of Adolf Hitler Campbell's parents. Odious people, to be sure. Is that justified? How much less odious would they need to be before they could keep their kids? Authorities allege neglect and abuse, but those are crimes and the parents haven't been charged.
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
He likes to have the appearance of caring for people more than you do.
What is caring for people? "I (the local authority) love people, so I am taking your child because it's best for all parties now go to sleep little civilian"? That's also pretty philosophical. And clearly antithetical to freedom.
I'm in camp "I love people therefore I wish to provide all with resources to make it".Fine. To get a good job these days, it seems like you need a college degree. Well, there are lots of public universities, just pass a law and give these people degrees so they can get good jobs.
That was a bit flippant, but my point is that it's easy to look at poor people and say, "Let's give them money so they won't be poor!" And certainly, that helps them buy bread and stuff, but it doesn't consider the longer term consequences. And when someone criticizes the welfare state for destroying peoples lives and wasting money, supporters of the welfare state often accuse the critics of not caring or being terrible people. We're all terrible in our own ways, but some of us think that being complicit in undermining multiple generations is pretty fucking cruel, and not just to the people whose lives suck because their taught to be dependent on others.
-
@PJH said:
@boomzilla said:
He likes to have the appearance of caring for people more than you do.
It's not working. At least not from where I'm sitting - he's coming across to me as one of the people who would lose out if we started requiring a majority of the population to actually take some responsibility for their lives instead of expecting the government to do it for them, currently funded, of course, by those who do take some responsibility in their lives.He would personally be fine, because he seems to have a job and whatnot. But he'd have to find another way to show his moral superiority. Presumably through some other not very well thought out campaign to control other people's lives.
-
Do you even bother reading the sources you misrepresent?
Would a household have to earn £41,000 to match a family on benefits?
@fullfact.org said:Conclusion
The Express's headline certainly oversimplifies the story. The £41,000 figure refers to the sum that a family would have to earn to match the income of the top 1% of households with the highest benefit receipts. It certainly isn't the average "family on welfare" implied by the paper.
Are half of British households a burden on the state?
@fullfact.org said:We should point out that where the Sunday Times claims that most households "received more in benefits and public services...than they paid in taxes," we're actually only looking at a selection of services provided by the state - such as health and education - while certain others, such as defence and the police, are outside the remit of the study.
Let's have a look at how the calculation was made using the average household as an example.
The average annual household income is £32,096 - we call this the original income as it is before any government intervention.
Step 1: Through cash benefits (i.e. state pension etc.) the average household gains £5,646. This ups the gross household income to £37,741.
Step 2: £7,453 of that is taken by the state through direct taxes, local taxes and national insurance contributions, after which our household's disposable income is now at £30,288.
Step 3: A further £5,250 goes to the taxman through VAT, duties, and other indirect taxes. Our annual post-tax income is £25,039.
Step 4: At this point we take into account benefits in kind (i.e. health and education). The average household gains £7,089, which takes our final income to £32,127. This means the average household receives £31 from the state annually.
The final step illustrates a minor but important point. A large chunk of what the average household receives from the state is comprised by benefits in kind, so one could conclude that the rise in net recipient non-retired households is in great part due to a rise in education and health spending, rather than welfare spending.
OMFG the fuckers are spending MY TAXES on EDUCATION and HEALTH! Quick, somebody stop them before we all DIE from CANCER and COMMUNISM and the COMMON COLD
-
@PJH said:
More than 50% of my gross income.
Employees don't pay income tax. The company they work for pays it. You don't own a single cent of that 50%.
-
@boomzilla said:
Odious
God I love this word.
I'm willing to go along with everything you say, just keep using advanced English.
-
@flabdablet said:
Of course. You're simply not reading what I wrote along side them. Well it's either that or rather you're deliberately selectively quoting me in order to construct straw men.Do you even bother reading the sources you
misrepresentuse?
I think it's time to stick you in Coventry with Swampy. You clearly can't hold a coherent debate without consistently misrepresenting your opponents' arguments in order to further your own, and I have better things to do than to continue to play such childish games.
-
@boomzilla said:
my point is that it's easy to look at poor people and say, "Let's give them money so they won't be poor!" And certainly, that helps them buy bread and stuff, but it doesn't consider the longer term consequences.
@boomzilla said:
supporters of the welfare state often accuse the critics of not caring
Because that's what the qualitative arguments always boil down to. Rah rah you're a harsh unfeeling cold-hearted bastard rah! And then I get to hear that I'm naive or stupid or short-sighted or whatever. And then one guy says "I got these numbers!" and the other guy says "those numbers aren't valid. I have these." and the first guy is "No those numbers aren't valid" It's always the same extremist-painting shit and we're not getting anywhere.
KillaCoda, in his infinite wisdom, said this:
Not like any of us here will ever get to actually change anything about how the system works.
So meh. All I can do is study the folks in charge and vote.
Which I forgot to do last time, so fuck me. My preferred party didn't win anyway. And got a leadership crisis a few months later because their charismatic leader said Screw you guys, I'm going home. That was fun!
