It's socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us
Discussion
lamboman100 said:
The very poor and very rich get relatively undertaxed and overspent. Everyone else in between gets squeezed until they scream.
C'est la vie.
Ain't that the truth. And it's getting worse because we are the ones that are too busy getting on with things to do much about it. C'est la vie.
The problem is Corporate Welfare is which businesses are supported and bailed out by the tax payer to the benefit of the shareholder. What happened to the idea that reward should be for risk?
That bastion of socialist rhetoric, Forbes asks Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?
10 Examples of Corporate Welfare
That bastion of socialist rhetoric, Forbes asks Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?
10 Examples of Corporate Welfare
Martin4x4 said:
The problem is Corporate Welfare is which businesses are supported and bailed out by the tax payer to the benefit of the shareholder. What happened to the idea that reward should be for risk?
That bastion of socialist rhetoric, Forbes asks Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?
10 Examples of Corporate Welfare
Welfare payments from taxes can increase if tax receipts show a net increase, meaning we can help more people and help them more as well.That bastion of socialist rhetoric, Forbes asks Where Is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?
10 Examples of Corporate Welfare
Net tax contributors who provide the large majority of tax-take, as used for welfare payments, consist of succesful corporations and successful individual earners.
Support for those net contributor groups ultimately supports tax-take and the ability to help people in genuine need of welfare. Was it established that the total net effect is negative, or positive?
In other words, don't just look at the existence and amount of tax paid out to corporations. It may be a big number and have high impact on the face of it, but look at whether the resulting change to the tax-take (subtracting the payments, and adding any unemployment costs avoided) via increased profit and increased earnings led to the net tax take increasing. It's possible I may have missed that bit, not least as one of the links didn't seem to be working.
vonuber said:
Disabled people who needed support were having their support stripped away by Atos. In one three-month period in 2012, 42% of appeals against Atos judgments were successful; but it is a process that is expensive for the taxpayer and often traumatic for the claimant. In the harsh benefit-bashing climate of austerity Britain, disability charities reported that "scrounger" rhetoric had provoked a surge in abuse towards disabled people on the streets. But the behaviour of state-funded private contractors such as Atos must surely raise the question of who the real scroungers are. It was not until April 2014 that Atos was forced to abandon the contract because of the growing backlash, but not until they had pocketed large sums of public money.
Apparently this never happened according to a few PH experts recently...legzr1 said:
vonuber said:
Disabled people who needed support were having their support stripped away by Atos. In one three-month period in 2012, 42% of appeals against Atos judgments were successful; but it is a process that is expensive for the taxpayer and often traumatic for the claimant. In the harsh benefit-bashing climate of austerity Britain, disability charities reported that "scrounger" rhetoric had provoked a surge in abuse towards disabled people on the streets. But the behaviour of state-funded private contractors such as Atos must surely raise the question of who the real scroungers are. It was not until April 2014 that Atos was forced to abandon the contract because of the growing backlash, but not until they had pocketed large sums of public money.
Apparently this never happened according to a few PH experts recently...article said:
Disabled people who needed support were having their support stripped away by Atos. In one three-month period in 2012, 42% of appeals against Atos judgments were successful; but it is a process that is expensive for the taxpayer and often traumatic for the claimant. In the harsh benefit-bashing climate of austerity Britain, disability charities reported that "scrounger" rhetoric had provoked a surge in abuse towards disabled people on the streets. But the behaviour of state-funded private contractors such as Atos must surely raise the question of who the real scroungers are. It was not until April 2014 that Atos was forced to abandon the contract because of the growing backlash, but not until they had pocketed large sums of public money.
Ah, so if the work had not been outsourced it would have been done by public sector "scroungers"?vonuber said:
Disabled people who needed support were having their support stripped away by Atos. In one three-month period in 2012, 42% of appeals against Atos judgments were successful; but it is a process that is expensive for the taxpayer and often traumatic for the claimant. In the harsh benefit-bashing climate of austerity Britain, disability charities reported that "scrounger" rhetoric had provoked a surge in abuse towards disabled people on the streets. But the behaviour of state-funded private contractors such as Atos must surely raise the question of who the real scroungers are. It was not until April 2014 that Atos was forced to abandon the contract because of the growing backlash, but not until they had pocketed large sums of public money.
So almost 60% of claimants were previously claiming money to which they were not entitled...?sidicks said:
vonuber said:
Disabled people who needed support were having their support stripped away by Atos. In one three-month period in 2012, 42% of appeals against Atos judgments were successful; but it is a process that is expensive for the taxpayer and often traumatic for the claimant. In the harsh benefit-bashing climate of austerity Britain, disability charities reported that "scrounger" rhetoric had provoked a surge in abuse towards disabled people on the streets. But the behaviour of state-funded private contractors such as Atos must surely raise the question of who the real scroungers are. It was not until April 2014 that Atos was forced to abandon the contract because of the growing backlash, but not until they had pocketed large sums of public money.
So almost 60% of claimants were previously claiming money to which they were not entitled...?I think the problem you have highlighted is that civil servants just don't know how to write a contract. Had a contract been issued where penalty clauses were included it would not have been an issue. Many blame this on Labour taking on the ATOS contract, which is merely a political football. It is quite simply down to civil servants.
pcvdriver said:
I think he's merely a bit naive, thinking that the usual disciples on here would oblige with some actual thoughtful discussion, instead of reverting to their usual closed-minded dogmatic clinging-onto, of their outmoded hypocritical political ideals.
Which, ironically, is exactly what Jones peddles.Guardian Artcile said:
...Compare the billions lost through tax avoidance to the £1.2bn lost through benefit fraud, an issue that remains the news fodder of choice for the rightwing press...
Two things immediately spring to mind on this...1) It's hard to compare an actual figure with a notion.
2) There is rather a large difference between "tax avoidance" and "fraud". Starting with one being perfectly legal.
wolves_wanderer said:
Don't forget they buy their coffee from that well known coffee exporter, Switzerland and various other services from the Netherlands - nothing to do with their lax corporate tax laws of course.
By "lax corporate tax laws", do you mean different countries electing to operate their taxation policies differently for the benefit of their nationals? We have no right to expect others to follow our tax regimes, and indeed likely benefit from similar "arbitrage" in different parts of our own tax code (there's enough of it to find all sorts of avenues - hence the "avoidance" we all seem so indignant about).The easiest way to combat this IMO would be to adjust our own corporate tax rules. There is evidently benefit in it for the likes of Switzerland, Ireland, Luxembourg and others. I don't really see why we don't play the game better ourselves - other than abject fear that people like Jones (from the article) would be b
hing and moaning from the sidelines that the downtrodden masses are being further downtrodden as a result. Which is patently an absolute nonsense in absolute terms.pteron said:
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged . One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.” ~John Rogers~
Have you read it?At 14 I was a socialist moron, thank God I grew up.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/im-ell...
Have a look through the comments on the page above. The fact that Mad Paul Krugman thinks that's the best quote ever tells me all I need to know.
Edited by XM5ER on Monday 1st September 16:34
O.J. pronouncements are usually a little over egged but of course that is a necessary requirement in our over hyped world of multi media. He manages to hit the nail on the head in a factual (hyper) style that leaves detractors unable to respond in anything other than derisory comment more often than not un-associated with the topics. Keep up the good work O.J.without which our political media world would be oh so drab and biased. 
Edited by crankedup on Monday 1st September 16:20
crankedup said:
...He manages to hit the nail on the head in a factual (hyper) style that leaves detractors unable to respond in anything other than derisory comment...
Either you haven't read the thread, or you just typed that out of wishful thinking. It just aint so. There are substantive responses there to be read and in a relatively short thread there's no need to repeat content that can be found easily.Sure there are plenty of detractors, and the nature of the author is diagnosed in many ways
but they're making valid points around various errors - these replies are then subjected to the type of response you describe. You must have missed the irony as well, somehow.FredClogs said:
Government today put £33billion (yes that's £33billion) of rail tracks debts onto the public accounts.
Yes that's £33billion of debt belonging to a company we used to own nationally that was then sold, rebought, bailed out, resold and then debt guranteed by the tax payer.
£33billion
Or they could let it default and go bang. Bye bye railworkers pensions and lucrative terms. Kinda makes you wonder who should be upset here!Yes that's £33billion of debt belonging to a company we used to own nationally that was then sold, rebought, bailed out, resold and then debt guranteed by the tax payer.
£33billion
FredClogs said:
Government today put £33billion (yes that's £33billion) of rail tracks debts onto the public accounts.
Yes that's £33billion of debt belonging to a company we used to own nationally that was then sold, rebought, bailed out, resold and then debt guranteed by the tax payer.
£33billion
I think you should be asking Stephen Byers why the Government have taken on a debt of £33 Billion Yes that's £33billion of debt belonging to a company we used to own nationally that was then sold, rebought, bailed out, resold and then debt guranteed by the tax payer.
£33billion
elster said:
FredClogs said:
Government today put £33billion (yes that's £33billion) of rail tracks debts onto the public accounts.
Yes that's £33billion of debt belonging to a company we used to own nationally that was then sold, rebought, bailed out, resold and then debt guranteed by the tax payer.
£33billion
I think you should be asking Stephen Byers why the Government have taken on a debt of £33 Billion Yes that's £33billion of debt belonging to a company we used to own nationally that was then sold, rebought, bailed out, resold and then debt guranteed by the tax payer.
£33billion
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff