news & politics:discussion

[Neil]

3 hours ago, Skip997 said:

I've absolutely no idea what you're going on about.

from one of your first posts this morning.

[cellar]

10 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

I have no idea on percentages.  I also wouldn't say I am pissed off.  Its just us lots chewing the fat on discussion forum that has zero impact on anything.

I don't think you have to accept 4% fraud claiming to ensure the 96% get what they need.  I suspect its much higher than 4% mind.

Oh, seemed like you were annoyed from some of your posts. 

Seems like a very rose-tinted view to think that fraud won't exist in any sort of structure that involves humans and money if you ask me, but if you have a solution, I'd love to hear it! 

[cellar]

9 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

I didn't think you was coming after me 😛  Was you?  😮 how mean 😛 

Going after/directing comment at. I would never "go after" anyone in that sense, actually I just started the day off trying to have a reasonable discussion with you, and then was stuck in work all day and came back to like 8 pages of updates 😂

[Guest]

Thoughts and prayers to the Tories. 

[cellar]

9 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Nah, its only current affairs and stuff for debate.  Its funny you think I am annoyed.

Is it rose tinted to think you can get fraud down ?   I don't think so.  While fraud will never be totally removed I don't think there is anything wrong in wanting government to be working hard to reduce it as much as possible and supporting their efforts to do so.  Both for tax evasion and benefit fraud.  Both rob the public purse.

I don't have solutions.  Thats for government. 

I suppose its because you were saying the same sort of things I'm used to angry right wingers who complain about benefits street saying that I thought you were annoyed - I'm glad you're not though, it's not worth getting upset about.

It would be much, much easier to get rich people paying at least the same as poor people into a SIPP, shouldn't we start there? Or are you happy with that system?  Getting corporations to pay the correct amount of tax should be easier too, and with greater financial benefit, but I guess there is the potential "risk" of them taking their business elsewhere (absolute nonsense really).

[mattiloy]

1 hour ago, Barry Fish said:

I have no idea on percentages.  I also wouldn't say I am pissed off.  Its just us lots chewing the fat on discussion forum that has zero impact on anything.

I don't think you have to accept 4% fraud claiming to ensure the 96% get what they need.  I suspect its much higher than 4% mind.

Agree with this a bit.

The % or amounts involved in both benefit fraud and tax dodging are not the issue.

The sense of unfairness and the visibility of that unfairness - whether tax dodging (alleged) nonce Branson spaffing a load of your dough on spaceships or whether its the stereotypical benefits villain from some daily mail piece you read about.

The fact that these examples exist and are so visible damages social contract between citizen and government and reduces trust in and ’buy in’ to the system. People pay tax because they have to, if they have to, rather than seeing it as being them buying into all the good big sh*t that makes a society worth living in. And then everybody gets on the make. Why should I not take the piss if everybody else is, kinda thing.

Unfortunately its much easier for governments to crack down on benefit fraud as the benefit recipients lobby is less persuasive than the tax dodgers lobby. And even worse, because our politicians aren’t that bright their ideas for cracking down on benefit fraud often tend to also clobber more than a few poor souls who are legitimately in need of a helping hand from the state.

Anyway didnt read all of this coffee saga but it seems to me that the critical difference is Skip being given something by a business owner who presumably would simply not have offered Skip the free coffee had he had to increase prices on his coffee.

So then the business owner has effectively taken it out of his own pocket. Again, if he wasnt able or willing to afford it, he simply would not have done so.

Its a poor analogy for tax or benefit fraud.

In fact, I would probably guess that the van owner hasnt declared all the cash he has made selling coffees, and I guess that Skip pays tax. So in fact you could almost argue that Skip is just claiming what is rightfully his.

Edited January 10 by mattiloy

[cellar]

10 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Like I say I reject the idea you should start with one at the expense of the other and its not how the government / civil service work either.  Go after both - and they do to be fair.

You can surely see that the administrative and practical costs are widely different on the two - changing the level of government top up on pension contributions so that its not based on income tax would be very easy to do; and something that has been talked about for years (at least 8, since that's as long as I've known about it). So no, they aren't doing anything about it.

I don't think we have the same idea of fair, though. So maybe that's the issue.

[cellar]

3 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

The fact that these examples exist and are so visible damages social contract between citizen and government is built and reduces trust in and ’buy in’ to the system. 

These "examples" are so prevalent because of trash media. 

Honestly if someone feels the only way they're going to be able to get along in life is to commit benefit fraud, then things probably aren't that great for them anyway. I don't understand the need for people to punch down as much as they do.

[cellar]

10 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

So your idea of fairness is to ignore people stealing from the state in the form of benefits until tax evasion is a thing of the past and tax avoidance is reduced ? 

Look in the middle you have average joe...  Probably you and me.  I work "hard", pay taxes and get on with life.  What is fair to me is if for the government to make sure everyone is paying their fair share.  Rich, poor or other. 

You seem to operate a robin hood complex for the benefit fraudsters. 

I think if we had a fairer system in general, there would be no need for people to commit benefit fraud. I wish it was simple as that, really.

But since life isn't that simple, if I'm going to complain about people getting more money than I think they're entitled to, it's always going to be rich people... Like yeah, always. Not a hard one for me.

[cellar]

10 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Its unhelpful if you continues to label peoples view points in the terms of trash media, and right wing nutter.  You should do better.  Its just removes oxygen from the room for debate.  I mainly read the broadsheets.  I read pretty much all the papers every day.  It nothing to do with trash media.

We are both as wanting for the government to deal with tax evasion as much as benefit fraud.  Its punching up and down.

Unhelpful to you, sure. 

I suppose I could do better, but then so could you, right? You don't know what I'm talking about when I refer to trash media in relation to benefits? 

[Neil]

25 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Agree with this a bit.

The % or amounts involved in both benefit fraud and tax dodging are not the issue.

The sense of unfairness and the visibility of that unfairness - whether tax dodging (alleged) nonce Branson spaffing a load of your dough on spaceships or whether its the stereotypical benefits villain from some daily mail piece you read about.

The fact that these examples exist and are so visible damages social contract between citizen and government and reduces trust in and ’buy in’ to the system. People pay tax because they have to, if they have to, rather than seeing it as being them buying into all the good big sh*t that makes a society worth living in. And then everybody gets on the make. Why should I not take the piss if everybody else is, kinda thing.

Unfortunately its much easier for governments to crack down on benefit fraud as the benefit recipients lobby is less persuasive than the tax dodgers lobby. And even worse, because our politicians aren’t that bright their ideas for cracking down on benefit fraud often tend to also clobber more than a few poor souls who are legitimately in need of a helping hand from the state.

Anyway didnt read all of this coffee saga but it seems to me that the critical difference is Skip being given something by a business owner who presumably would simply not have offered Skip the free coffee had he had to increase prices on his coffee.

So then the business owner has effectively taken it out of his own pocket. Again, if he wasnt able or willing to afford it, he simply would not have done so.

Its a poor analogy for tax or benefit fraud.

In fact, I would probably guess that the van owner hasnt declared all the cash he has made selling coffees, and I guess that Skip pays tax. So in fact you could almost argue that Skip is just claiming what is rightfully his.

Branson isn't an alleged tax dodger he has a conviction for vat fraud.

Edited January 10 by Neil

[cellar]

9 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Makes me chuckle when someone thinks their viewpoints are of on a higher intellectual thinking than the next guy while posting on a festival forum 😛 

FFS some of you don't half think you are highbrow 😛   Like the concept of people not stealing benefits can only be the work of the Daily Mail 😛 

Its like me just saying you only read the Guardian and Socialist weekly 😛 

You are Owen Jones @cellar and I claim my £5 😛 

Ahh, I've managed to push your buttons! I win - goodnight 😉

[steviewevie]

More action in the Red Sea...those pesky Houthis...escalate escalate boom.

[steviewevie]

7 hours ago, Neil said:

Branson isn't an alleged tax dodger he has a conviction for vat fraud.

I think the alleged bit was calling him a nonce, usual social media qanon-lite sewage.

[Guest]

If these amendments fail then in theory they could then sink the bill. Interesting.

[steviewevie]

 

[Skip997]

10 hours ago, stuie said:

take any perk that comes my way and I don’t think that’s freeloading. 

Of course it's not freeloading

[mattiloy]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

I think the alleged bit was calling him a nonce, usual social media qanon-lite sewage.

Ah right 

[Nobody Interesting]

Imagine people who receive (at today's rate) £19,968 in child benefit calling a person who got a free cup of coffee a freeloader.

Good job most of you lot are not politicians else you would have people flogged.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, mattiloy said:

Ah right 

What has any of that got to do with tax?

[steviewevie]

Where are you? I am at my lowest point.

[steviewevie]

men obviously don't like work that much.

[lost]

19 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Well the graph also represents when people start having children 😛. and then they leave home and everyone gets happy 😄  

Yeah when I've seen these numbers before male hapiness tends to bottom around 47/48. The point where you have depedants at both ends, children and eldery parents. Potentially some male menopause / drop off in testosterone levels in there too. I've a mate who's just started on TRT in his mid-40's and every time I see him now he seems to have a black eye from fighting 😄

Edited January 10 by lost

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, lost said:

Yeah when I've seen these numbers before male hapiness tends to bottom around 47/48. The point where you have depedants at both ends, children and eldery parents. Potentially some male menopause / drop off in testosterone levels in there too. I've a mate who's just started on TRT in his mid-40's and every time I see him now he seems to have a black eye from fighting 😄

Nothing to do with having to go to work then?

[steviewevie]

Because I can't wait to retire