Over half of the population are on the take
Discussion
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/19/mo...
How can this go on, those of us working are being squeezed beyond breaking point, I know personally several families that are having a very good lifestyle not working, the Mrs is having salon visits, false nails and holidays, the bloke is fishing all day or out mountain biking.
I appreciate these figures includes working people getting's top ups but for those of use just getting rinsed what's the solution?
How can this go on, those of us working are being squeezed beyond breaking point, I know personally several families that are having a very good lifestyle not working, the Mrs is having salon visits, false nails and holidays, the bloke is fishing all day or out mountain biking.
I appreciate these figures includes working people getting's top ups but for those of use just getting rinsed what's the solution?
Edited by Sheets Tabuer on Thursday 19th December 23:36
I'm a miserable, work shy layabout, however, everyone I know or see is taking the piss more than me!
It's only my laziness and being risk adverse that prevents me just f
king off every law and moral standard, as from what I see, I'm the fking idiot for not doing it!
And don't tell me I'm wrong, as I bet you're taking the piss more than me!
It's only my laziness and being risk adverse that prevents me just f
king off every law and moral standard, as from what I see, I'm the fking idiot for not doing it!And don't tell me I'm wrong, as I bet you're taking the piss more than me!
Sheets Tabuer said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/19/mo...
How can this go on, those of us working are being squeezed beyond breaking point, I know personally several families that are having a very good lifestyle not working, the Mrs is having salon visits, false nails and holidays, the bloke is fishing all day or out mountain biking.
I appreciate these figures includes working people getting's top ups but for those of use just getting rinsed what's the solution?
You did read the article? It doesn't state that over half the population are not working and on benefits.How can this go on, those of us working are being squeezed beyond breaking point, I know personally several families that are having a very good lifestyle not working, the Mrs is having salon visits, false nails and holidays, the bloke is fishing all day or out mountain biking.
I appreciate these figures includes working people getting's top ups but for those of use just getting rinsed what's the solution?
Edited by Sheets Tabuer on Thursday 19th December 23:36
Silvanus said:
You did read the article? It doesn't state that over half the population are not working and on benefits.
Did you read what I wrote, I didn't say that.From the article "More than half of people in the UK receive more in benefits than they contribute in taxes, official figures show..."
My Title "Over half of the population are on the take"
Sheets Tabuer said:
Silvanus said:
You did read the article? It doesn't state that over half the population are not working and on benefits.
Did you read what I wrote, I didn't say that.From the article "More than half of people in the UK receive more in benefits than they contribute in taxes, official figures show..."
My Title "Over half of the population are on the take"
Silvanus said:
Sheets Tabuer said:
Silvanus said:
You did read the article? It doesn't state that over half the population are not working and on benefits.
Did you read what I wrote, I didn't say that.From the article "More than half of people in the UK receive more in benefits than they contribute in taxes, official figures show..."
My Title "Over half of the population are on the take"
MrBogSmith said:
Does it include things like VAT / fuel, alcohol and tobacco duty?
Direct and indirect taxes included.The report mentions Pensioners are the biggest receivers. The lowest earners receipt has actually dropped slightly and the highest earners receipt has increased slightly.
Of course they do, and it’s perfectly obvious why if you think about it.
Thought experiment. Imagine a society with one tax, a flat rate on income, and one service that it all goes on and everyone uses. Let’s say it’s for water and sanitation and emptying the bins.
If all of the money is spent on the service and everyone makes equal use of the service, the benefit per person will be the same as the mean tax contribution.
Now consider the distribution of tax contributions. Think of the median - the value that 50% of the people pay more than and 50% pay less than. If that number is the same as the mean (say the incomes and hence the taxes are on a symmetrical bell curve) then half the population will be net recipients and half will be net contributors. (That’s ignoring the special case where everyone earns the same and everyone breaks even).
If the median is above the mean, meaning that there are some very poor people dragging the mean down and everyone else is around the middle, most people will be net contributors. Conversely, if it’s the other way round, and you have most people around the same income and a few very rich people, most people will be net recipients.
If you think about the distribution of income in the UK, even assuming that everyone makes equal use of all services, obviously most people will be net recipients over their lifetime.
Then add in progressive taxation by which your % contribution increases with income.
Then add in unequal use of services, by which the poor tend to need more help from the state.
Then add in welfare benefits, which go to the less well off.
Then add in government borrowing, by which means spending exceeds taxation.
Of course most people are net recipients, how could it be otherwise?
That is not, however, the whole story. The people making lots more money and paying lots more tax are not generally doing so by the sweat of their own brows alone. They are doing it by taking a cut of the productivity of the people they directly or indirectly employ, or who they rent their property to. People who may not themselves pay enough tax to cover their own costs, but without whom the income upon which the tax is levied would not exist.
Ultimately the concept of earnings and taxation is a poor proxy for the contribution someone makes to the functioning of society. You can make an awful lot of money and pay an awful lot of tax without actually doing anything to materially contribute to society.
Thought experiment. Imagine a society with one tax, a flat rate on income, and one service that it all goes on and everyone uses. Let’s say it’s for water and sanitation and emptying the bins.
If all of the money is spent on the service and everyone makes equal use of the service, the benefit per person will be the same as the mean tax contribution.
Now consider the distribution of tax contributions. Think of the median - the value that 50% of the people pay more than and 50% pay less than. If that number is the same as the mean (say the incomes and hence the taxes are on a symmetrical bell curve) then half the population will be net recipients and half will be net contributors. (That’s ignoring the special case where everyone earns the same and everyone breaks even).
If the median is above the mean, meaning that there are some very poor people dragging the mean down and everyone else is around the middle, most people will be net contributors. Conversely, if it’s the other way round, and you have most people around the same income and a few very rich people, most people will be net recipients.
If you think about the distribution of income in the UK, even assuming that everyone makes equal use of all services, obviously most people will be net recipients over their lifetime.
Then add in progressive taxation by which your % contribution increases with income.
Then add in unequal use of services, by which the poor tend to need more help from the state.
Then add in welfare benefits, which go to the less well off.
Then add in government borrowing, by which means spending exceeds taxation.
Of course most people are net recipients, how could it be otherwise?
That is not, however, the whole story. The people making lots more money and paying lots more tax are not generally doing so by the sweat of their own brows alone. They are doing it by taking a cut of the productivity of the people they directly or indirectly employ, or who they rent their property to. People who may not themselves pay enough tax to cover their own costs, but without whom the income upon which the tax is levied would not exist.
Ultimately the concept of earnings and taxation is a poor proxy for the contribution someone makes to the functioning of society. You can make an awful lot of money and pay an awful lot of tax without actually doing anything to materially contribute to society.
Sheets Tabuer said:
Did you read what I wrote, I didn't say that.
From the article "More than half of people in the UK receive more in benefits than they contribute in taxes, official figures show..."
My Title "Over half of the population are on the take"
Your title is deliberately misleading.From the article "More than half of people in the UK receive more in benefits than they contribute in taxes, official figures show..."
My Title "Over half of the population are on the take"
otolith said:
Ultimately the concept of earnings and taxation is a poor proxy for the contribution someone makes to the functioning of society. You can make an awful lot of money and pay an awful lot of tax without actually doing anything to materially contribute to society.
Cool, if that awful lot of tax isn't materially contributing to society then there's no point in paying it.
okgo said:
I don’t know anyone on the benefits career but it’s never looked that appealing tbh.
You can’t view it from the perspective of someone with aspirations. You need to view it from the perspective of someone who has tossed off school and has the options of low-paid menial jobs and a very average life, or achieving the same very average life by doing nothing and rinsing the system. My in-law’s neighbours have both managed to eat themselves to disability benefits. They’ve achieved the same house, more holidays, a caravan and better cars than the in-laws have and yet haven’t worked for decades. These stories are very, very common.
And don’t get me started on the spongers who are actually in work! My wife has just been made redundant by the local council and had to interview for her own job! She didn’t get it. Instead they’ve given it some bloke from a different department, who’s been on the sick for two six-month periods in the last two years and who was just about to go on a performance monitoring scheme because he was so s
t at his job. Some people just know how to game the system but when you’ve got morons running the public sector who seem to actively encourage this behaviour it’s no wonder the country is crumbling. If the clowns running Kirklees council had to work in the real world they’d be out on their ear in a week.
The headline to this thread could have read, 'Over half the population are paid so little by the companies they work for that they have to be subsidised by your taxes'.
What it lacks in punchiness, it more than makes up in accuracy.
It's not a model that is healthy nor, I would think, sustainable. It's a form of government subsidy. The individual who receive these subsidies (I accept that it is the companies which gain the benefit) are, one could say, the victims of the system.
What it lacks in punchiness, it more than makes up in accuracy.
It's not a model that is healthy nor, I would think, sustainable. It's a form of government subsidy. The individual who receive these subsidies (I accept that it is the companies which gain the benefit) are, one could say, the victims of the system.
Derek Smith said:
The headline to this thread could have read, 'Over half the population are paid so little by the companies they work for that they have to be subsidised by your taxes'.
What it lacks in punchiness, it more than makes up in accuracy.
It's not a model that is healthy nor, I would think, sustainable. It's a form of government subsidy. The individual who receive these subsidies (I accept that it is the companies which gain the benefit) are, one could say, the victims of the system.
This is also true wages are too low and therefore taxes are high to attempt to provide a safety net.What it lacks in punchiness, it more than makes up in accuracy.
It's not a model that is healthy nor, I would think, sustainable. It's a form of government subsidy. The individual who receive these subsidies (I accept that it is the companies which gain the benefit) are, one could say, the victims of the system.
It's a British way if doing things unlike perhaps the US model high wages zero safety net.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff