So Lets Shaft Our Farmers.....
News2 mins ago
Labour In A Nutshell
Came across this posted in a thread earlier today
///If public services for 100% of the population, can be funded properly, by modestly increasing the tax burden on 5% of the population, then just what is wrong with that ? ///
To my mind it just sums up the Labour attitude perfectly,
"Why should we pay when the rich can pay for it for us?
You have been warned.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Baldric. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“What warped mind would come up with a scheme to tax those who have PMI, and therefore by dint of which will be a lesser burden on the NHS,…”
Probably the same warped mind that wants to remove the charitable status enjoyed by fee-paying schools (who will thus be forced to raise their fees), whose pupils’ parents reduce the burden they place on the State education system.
Probably the same warped mind that wants to remove the charitable status enjoyed by fee-paying schools (who will thus be forced to raise their fees), whose pupils’ parents reduce the burden they place on the State education system.
£80k or £80b is just a question of degree. The principle that those having attracted more wealth to them, way above covering their needs, (whilst other citizens who also work hard but get hardly a fraction of that) should pay more into the pot, is a reasonable one.
Folk may not think they have exploited others but accumulating excess compared to the norm can't be done without asking for more than one could, or even should, for their product or service. It matters little if one does it for oneself or have an employer who does and passes on a sizeable portion to those they employ.
Ultimately this is simply about who should pay what portion into the public purse. The more leisure/luxury wealth you attract as a member of the country then surely the greater percentage of that you should gratefully pay; whereas the closer to just covering your needs that you are, the smaller percentage you should be expected to contribute.
Folk may not think they have exploited others but accumulating excess compared to the norm can't be done without asking for more than one could, or even should, for their product or service. It matters little if one does it for oneself or have an employer who does and passes on a sizeable portion to those they employ.
Ultimately this is simply about who should pay what portion into the public purse. The more leisure/luxury wealth you attract as a member of the country then surely the greater percentage of that you should gratefully pay; whereas the closer to just covering your needs that you are, the smaller percentage you should be expected to contribute.
OG. ‘Gratefully’? Why? The people we’re talking about are, in the main, those who have a nine to five contract but nevertheless arrive at 8am and often don’t leave until 8pm or later – and weekend working when necessary – with no overtime payments. They don’t take time off for a sniffle either – and if business doesn’t allow, nor do they take their full holiday entitlement. They have climbed the ladder through their own efforts and they work hard for what they have – and the ‘leisure’ you mention is last on their list of priorities. They shouldn’t be grateful to anyone. Fleece them and you take away all incentive. They may just as well find a cushy number collecting trolleys in a supermarket car park! They pay enough! You really haven't a clue!
/// The more leisure/luxury wealth you attract as a member of the country then surely the greater percentage of that you should gratefully pay///
DRIVEL!
If the % remained the same they would still be paying in more by virtue of the fact it's the same % of higher amounts therefore a higher contribution.
It's the same Old Labour attitude, "Soak the Rich" closely followed by "The World owes me a living"
It is possible to get rich without hard work.
Look at Jeremy Corbyn, spent his life grumbling from the backbenches ar Westminster and yelling anti-British propaganda through a megaphone at innocent passers-by. He "earns" £ 130,000 a year!
And as for Len McCluskey, the poor wee soul survives on a pitiful £ 142,500 plus a £ 400 k from Unite.
Yep, and they pose as the party for the many, not the few.
Look at Jeremy Corbyn, spent his life grumbling from the backbenches ar Westminster and yelling anti-British propaganda through a megaphone at innocent passers-by. He "earns" £ 130,000 a year!
And as for Len McCluskey, the poor wee soul survives on a pitiful £ 142,500 plus a £ 400 k from Unite.
Yep, and they pose as the party for the many, not the few.
