Mother of 8 kids can't survive on £2,000 a month benefits

[Diablo]

Whenever cases like Jimmy Carr or Gary Barlow using legal loopholes to avoid paying taxes (millions in some cases) someone always pops up defending them with something along the lines of "everyone would do what they can to avoid paying as much tax as they can get away with"

Rich people play the system in a legal, but immoral way - good luck to them!
Poor people play the system in a legal, but immoral way - scum!

Why are we so hard on poor people, and so easy on the rich?

Without "Rich People" there would be a lot less money to go to the welfare System...The top 1% of earners pay 30% of income Tax and the top 25% pay 75% plus they are bound to spend the most contributing most to VAT etc etc..they probably cost nothing in school or NHS costs.....So I say get of their back the more Rich people there are the more money there is for us!!!!

Just think another 1% of top earners and chancellor would have 30% increase in his budget......Push top to hard and they move abroad and budget slashed by 30%...

 

[Nibble]

Without "Rich People" there would be a lot less money to go to the welfare System...The top 1% of earners pay 30% of income Tax and the top 25% pay 75% plus they are bound to spend the most contributing most to VAT etc etc..they probably cost nothing in school or NHS costs.....So I say get of their back the more Rich people there are the more money there is for us!!!!

Just think another 1% of top earners and chancellor would have 30% increase in his budget......Push top to hard and they move abroad and budget slashed by 30%...

So the bloody should, fat greedy shits

 

[portlock seagull]

Without "Rich People" there would be a lot less money to go to the welfare System...The top 1% of earners pay 30% of income Tax and the top 25% pay 75% plus they are bound to spend the most contributing most to VAT etc etc..they probably cost nothing in school or NHS costs.....So I say get of their back the more Rich people there are the more money there is for us!!!!

Just think another 1% of top earners and chancellor would have 30% increase in his budget......Push top to hard and they move abroad and budget slashed by 30%...

That's just bullshit though - UK is safe place to keep moment and look at the lifestyle. Nobody but nobody apart from disillusioned middle and lower native classes are moving abroad. Meanwhile everyone else is coming here because of the safe and stable economic and political entities not to mention opportunity. Sorry, just cannot buy this veiled threat of moving abroad by the rich when it never happens

 

[Diablo]

So the bloody should, fat greedy shits

Can you explain..... So the bloody should ?? fat greedy shits have you been drinking

 

[Acker79]

Do you not think that this is just that shade simplistic and contrived to suit your particular standpoint? When wealthier people get caught, I can't honestly say that I have heard anyone defending them - they deserve the same censure as anyone else. Indeed, my experience is exactly the opposite - typical that "the rich" get away with it ,as well as "the poor", and middle England ends up paying, because they don't have the fancy lawyers to help them wriggle out of it, or the lack of social conscience typical of benefit chasers.

No, I don't. I think it really is that simple.

I'm going by discussions on here mainly. I've seen people defend them based on legal loopholes, and how everyone will do what is best for them. Bozza in the budget thread for example https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showt...-2015-budget&p=6988235&viewfull=1#post6988235 and here https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showt...-2015-budget&p=6987641&viewfull=1#post6987641

Compare the first two replies in the matt upson thread https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?309868-Matt-Upson-tax-Dodger to the first two in this thread.

I don't think that means your point about middleclass people feeling they get the brunt of it and the rich and the poor get away with it isn't also valid. I don't mean absolutely everyone agrees rich avoiding tax is fine, poor abusing benefits are scum. But look at the people "defending" the woman in this example - no one is praising her, no one is defending what she did. Even my position is 'she is an outlier, a piece of propaganda used to distract us'. But when the other side is put forward in tac avoidance, it's always 'well, we'd all do it, so good luck to them'.

The scheme was taken to a tax tribunal and proved to be a method to avoid tax. Those invovled are now liable to pay the tax. Many invoved have said the acheme was morraly wrong and apologised. we need to continue to pursue the rich abusers

Doesn't matter for my point. Which is about the difference in the attitude of people to the news of rich people avoiding tax (that specific example was just the first that came to mind) compared to poor people abusing benefits.

 

[Hastings gull]

They are either telling themselves what they need to to get themselves through or they are a product of a broken society. Either way I can't feel much other than pity for them. Like you said earlier work ethics and principles are hand down through generations, it is safe to assume other ethics and morals are passed on the same way. Some people just don't stand a chance.

I have to say that I don't really understand your very first point. As to the broken society, well this is very debatable, because it would seem that you are putting the onus on others rather than where it belongs. -with themselves. I spent 35 years trying to get kids from rougher areas to see the value of education, with quite frankly limited success, and need a great deal of persuading that society is to blame. Yes, ethics etc are handed down through the generations, and it quite likely that, whilst all children have a free choice, in practice they will only ever likely choose one way. In Hastings at present, huge sums of money have been pumped into schools, only for Ofsted to continue to look at relative under-achievement. With Pupil Premium money and other top-ups to combat educational poverty, much is done to help largely but not exclusively poorer families. Some children who do not have life enriching experiences probably do not have the same chances, as you rightly say, but that is not to blame society necessarily.

 

[BadFish]

I have to say that I don't really understand your very first point. As to the broken society, well this is very debatable, because it would seem that you are putting the onus on others rather than where it belongs. -with themselves. I spent 35 years trying to get kids from rougher areas to see the value of education, with quite frankly limited success, and need a great deal of persuading that society is to blame. Yes, ethics etc are handed down through the generations, and it quite likely that, whilst all children have a free choice, in practice they will only ever likely choose one way. In Hastings at present, huge sums of money have been pumped into schools, only for Ofsted to continue to look at relative under-achievement. With Pupil Premium money and other top-ups to combat educational poverty, much is done to help largely but not exclusively poorer families. Some children who do not have life enriching experiences probably do not have the same chances, as you rightly say, but that is not to blame society necessarily.

I think it is too simplistic to blame one or the other. We are all products of many different influences our parents and wider community being very important ones. I would suggest that this is one of the main reasons for the limited success you experienced. You seem to suggest different and I would be interested to know your ideas on your experience.

 

[Hastings gull]

No, I don't. I think it really is that simple.

I'm going by discussions on here mainly. I've seen people defend them based on legal loopholes, and how everyone will do what is best for them. Bozza in the budget thread for example https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showt...-2015-budget&p=6988235&viewfull=1#post6988235 and here https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showt...-2015-budget&p=6987641&viewfull=1#post6987641

Compare the first two replies in the matt upson thread https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?309868-Matt-Upson-tax-Dodger to the first two in this thread.

I don't think that means your point about middleclass people feeling they get the brunt of it and the rich and the poor get away with it isn't also valid. I don't mean absolutely everyone agrees rich avoiding tax is fine, poor abusing benefits are scum. But look at the people "defending" the woman in this example - no one is praising her, no one is defending what she did. Even my position is 'she is an outlier, a piece of propaganda used to distract us'. But when the other side is put forward in tac avoidance, it's always 'well, we'd all do it, so good luck to them'.


Doesn't matter for my point. Which is about the difference in the attitude of people to the news of rich people avoiding tax (that specific example was just the first that came to mind) compared to poor people abusing benefits.

Highlighted -is this typo or is this something else? What is an outlier? Yes, you are right in that you do hear comments such as "we would all do it if we had the chance" but this aside is aimed at anyone, surely, and we probably would!

 

[cunning fergus]

That's just bullshit though - UK is safe place to keep moment and look at the lifestyle. Nobody but nobody apart from disillusioned middle and lower native classes are moving abroad. Meanwhile everyone else is coming here because of the safe and stable economic and political entities not to mention opportunity. Sorry, just cannot buy this veiled threat of moving abroad by the rich when it never happens

The recent experience of France suggests otherwise.........

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/10390571/france-hollande-taxes-socialist-farrage.html

Even worse news for the supporters of tax the rich till their pips squeak policy, is that it didn't bring in the money (see above), and has now been quietly dropped.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax

Even the most capitalist country in the world are finding out that capitalism is out trumping patriotism.........

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/05/08/new-un-american-record-renouncing-u-s-citizenship/

You can close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears of course............

 

[Hastings gull]

I think it is too simplistic to blame one or the other. We are all products of many different influences our parents and wider community being very important ones. I would suggest that this is one of the main reasons for the limited success you experienced. You seem to suggest different and I would be interested to know your ideas on your experience.

By far the most important single influence on the child will be that of the parent or in some cases, what passes for the parent. The influence of school/social services/Police etc etc will be minimal at best. Of course we are all products of many differing experiences, all of which affect us, as you say, but this is the main central point -parental influence. If that is benign,(whatever that means, I know!) the child will flourish, and if the parent has no interest in education, then that will inevitably transmit itself to the child. Education can lift the child out of poverty and there are ample opportunities, with much encouragement given to pupils from poorer homes, but the parent has to be persuaded so. I am clerk to governors in three local primary schools and it is a perpetual complaint that the school is battling against indifference at home. Certainly with regard to schooling, society does a great deal for disadvantaged families, but as the saying goes,: you can take a horse to the well but you can't make it drink.

 

[BadFish]

By far the most important single influence on the child will be that of the parent or in some cases, what passes for the parent. The influence of school/social services/Police etc etc will be minimal at best. Of course we are all products of many differing experiences, all of which affect us, as you say, but this is the main central point -parental influence. If that is benign,(whatever that means, I know!) the child will flourish, and if the parent has no interest in education, then that will inevitably transmit itself to the child. Education can lift the child out of poverty and there are ample opportunities, with much encouragement given to pupils from poorer homes, but the parent has to be persuaded so. I am clerk to governors in three local primary schools and it is a perpetual complaint that the school is battling against indifference at home. Certainly with regard to schooling, society does a great deal for disadvantaged families, but as the saying goes,: you can take a horse to the well but you can't make it drink.

I think we are in agreement on much of this although i disagree with your notion that parents/families are separate to society. The whole picture that people are growing up in are far too tangled to make distinct. Perhaps my definition of society it too broad but I think that the problems we face here are only going to be solved by acceptance that broad changes are necessary over many generations to demonstrate that people have options and hard work will have rewards.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Compare the first two replies in the matt upson thread https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?309868-Matt-Upson-tax-Dodger to the first two in this thread.

I don't think that means your point about middleclass people feeling they get the brunt of it and the rich and the poor get away with it isn't also valid. I don't mean absolutely everyone agrees rich avoiding tax is fine, poor abusing benefits are scum. But look at the people "defending" the woman in this example - no one is praising her, no one is defending what she did. Even my position is 'she is an outlier, a piece of propaganda used to distract us'. But when the other side is put forward in tac avoidance, it's always 'well, we'd all do it, so good luck to them'.



Doesn't matter for my point. Which is about the difference in the attitude of people to the news of rich people avoiding tax (that specific example was just the first that came to mind) compared to poor people abusing benefits.

But your wrong. The public outcry on tax avoidance had an impact

 

[Acker79]

Highlighted -is this typo or is this something else? What is an outlier? Yes, you are right in that you do hear comments such as "we would all do it if we had the chance" but this aside is aimed at anyone, surely, and we probably would!

The only typo is that is should be 'tax; not 'tac'. 'Outlier' is a statistical term, it means a case that is not part of the normal pattern, an anomaly. (wiki entry.

The 'aside' is sometimes people's sole contribution to the discussion. And, again, it is justifying and defending a tax avoider in a way benefit fraudsters are never defended.

 

[Hastings gull]

I think we are in agreement on much of this although i disagree with your notion that parents/families are separate to society. The whole picture that people are growing up in are far too tangled to make distinct. Perhaps my definition of society it too broad but I think that the problems we face here are only going to be solved by acceptance that broad changes are necessary over many generations to demonstrate that people have options and hard work will have rewards.[/QUOTE]

I am not suggesting that a section of parents are separate to society -of course they belong to society like any other section. Just that you cannot blame others for the slothful behaviour of the minority. Fully agree with you last comments, now get to bed!

 

[piersa]

under a labour govt. she would be encouraged to have more kids and never work a day in her life.

 

[Hastings gull]

The only typo is that is should be 'tax; not 'tac'. 'Outlier' is a statistical term, it means a case that is not part of the normal pattern, an anomaly. (wiki entry.

The 'aside' is sometimes people's sole contribution to the discussion. And, again, it is justifying and defending a tax avoider in a way benefit fraudsters are never defended.

Thanks -I had never heard of the word. I had realised about tac and tax! I am not sure that the "aside" is used to justify and defend the fraud, as everyone knows that you should pay the tax. I suppose it is just simply a realisation that greed would get the better of us. It is not quite the same as actually defending the avoidance or should it be evasion? I do see what you are saying and whilst I haven't got the time to look at the quotes you mention, but don't doubt you by the way, I really don't think that public opinion is as two-faced as you say. Cheats usually get moaned at whoever they are.

 

[Acker79]

But your wrong. The public outcry on tax avoidance had an impact

Where have I claimed anything, at all, about the impact of people's reaction?

There are people who complain about tax avoiding rich people.
There are people who complain about benefit abusing poor people.

My point is that when it comes to the other side of the argument

There are people who defend tax avoidance, claiming we'd all do it if we had the chance
There are not people who defend benefits abuse - those that don't get on the backs of the poor are defending the system, or criticising the culture that plays a significant part in creating them.

 

[piersa]

Shock woman on nsc objects to misogyny and retaliates to a load of thumbs down.

Are you a dole scrounger Jane? Or do you work and pay your way?

 

[Buzzer]

Perhaps my definition of society it too broad but I think that the problems we face here are only going to be solved by acceptance that broad changes are necessary over many generations to demonstrate that people have options and hard work will have rewards.

A problem that is two generations old at most will take many generations to fix? Maybe because your definition of society is one of victim culture where no-one takes personal responsibility. I don't have strong opinions one way or the other on this woman and her 8 kids but if what you say is true and we need to spend all that time and resources trying to convince people to work towards a life of personal self-sufficiency, then it's clearly the benefits system that is the root cause of the problem. The fact that it's a very recent phenomenon also backs this view up. Our grandparents never had this culture but they never had access to all these benefits.

It therefore seems to me that all these arguments about tax-avoiding high earners and corporations has sod all to do with this particular issue and is just deflecting from the issue at hand - that the benefits system is well and truly f*cked.

 

[BadFish]

A problem that is two generations old at most will take many generations to fix? Maybe because your definition of society is one of victim culture where no-one takes personal responsibility. I don't have strong opinions one way or the other on this woman and her 8 kids but if what you say is true and we need to spend all that time and resources trying to convince people to work towards a life of personal self-sufficiency, then it's clearly the benefits system that is the root cause of the problem. The fact that it's a very recent phenomenon also backs this view up. Our grandparents never had this culture but they never had access to all these benefits.

It therefore seems to me that all these arguments about tax-avoiding high earners and corporations has sod all to do with this particular issue and is just deflecting from the issue at hand - that the benefits system is well and truly f*cked.

The benefits system is well and truly ****ed I would agree. But to fix it you need to offer a decent alternative. Maybe the changes in the employment system have some part to play in his phenomenon too.