desmondo Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 What frustrates me is the way politicians like Smith go on about the unemployed and how he will get them back to work Where are all these jobs ?? Are they FT/PT short term, long term, agency Whats the pay and conditions Its a continual attack on the poor and if all jobs available went tomorrow we would still have millions without work Sure the professional beggars need hounded but i dont think many families enjoy penury and see it the way forward Guys like Smith are just nasty and vindictive ****s I wish him pain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Except it is from the mirror... A truly awful article though. Neverless it's sadly true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 What's the next set of high rises in Edinburgh to be dynamited? Give IDS all the benefits going, plus his ?53 a week, but he and his family must stay in one of them for a year before they are stripped out and blasted. The flats, not the IDS family obviously. Should be a piece of p for an ex soldier like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 What frustrates me is the way politicians like Smith go on about the unemployed and how he will get them back to work Where are all these jobs ?? Are they FT/PT short term, long term, agency Whats the pay and conditions Its a continual attack on the poor and if all jobs available went tomorrow we would still have millions without work Sure the professional beggars need hounded but i dont think many families enjoy penury and see it the way forward Guys like Smith are just nasty and vindictive ****s I wish him pain Filled by polish / eastern european people motivated to work for a living, who are looking to better themselves..there are jobs there.. I firmly believe we should take care of those who are genuinely trying to find employment, but the serial spongers I can't take. I know quite a few people locally who delivertely turn up to interviews in their track suits just so they won't be offered jobs, they are not exactly a rarity. One walk through several central belt towns at lunch time will let you see the extend of the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_ Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 If it's spongers you want to talk about, how about this one? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22003165 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Who's the biggest sponger? A JSA claimant on 70-odd quid a week, or our wonderful MPs? I picked an MP at random to see how much they claimed last year. This is how much Andrew Smith Oxford East BC The details below provide a summary of the costs incurred by the MP in carrying out their Parliamentary duties in 2011/12. MPs can only claim for costs which are within the rules set out in the MPs' Scheme of Business Costs and Expenses. Total Cost (2011-2012) Constituency and Staffing Costs Constituency Office ?15,491.75 General Admin ?1,214.08 Staffing Expenses ?0.00 Miscellaneous Expenses ?478.10 Constituency Rental ?2,718.69 Payroll ?114,601.42 Direct Parliamentary Expenses Accommodation ?5,903.56 Travel and Subsistence?2,560.55 Total ?142,968.15 Connected Parties in the MP's Employment Valerie Smith ?10,000 - ?14,999 Office Manager Loans and Advances Advance None Constituency Office Deposit None Accommodation Deposit None Salary Basic Salary ?65,738.00 Additional Payments ?0.00 London Area Living Payment ?0.00 I make that ?223,705.16 as the total cost to the state for the activities of ONE bog-standard MP per year. And I'm sure you'd have to factor in the additional allowances for food and the cost of the subsidised food and drink at Westminster etc. If an MP works a full term of 5 years, they will also get ?32K severance plus ?42K to wind down their office. That is an eye-watering ONE MILLION POUNDS plus per MP per Term cost to the taxpayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 If it's spongers you want to talk about, how about this one? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22003165 Got to keep the wealthy wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Guns Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Bang on the cash fella. You don't work for a council do you? Sure do. Was it obvious? Haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocco_Jambo Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 To be honest there is some truth in both sides of the arguement. There are some lazy scroungers on benefits and some who will be greatly disadvantaged through these new rules through no fault of their own and there are many politicians who are lying *******s who have no idea what being poor is like who will quite happily look the other way when it comes to being stronger on tax avoidance by the wealthy due to them being the wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_razors_edge Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Sure do. Was it obvious? Haha. Just a wee bit. Housing dept by any chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Guns Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Just a wee bit. Housing dept by any chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Benoit Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Alright for you two you can get away with speaking to them on the phone, I've got to go into their flea pits on a daily basis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Alright for you two you can get away with speaking to them on the phone, I've got to go into their flea pits on a daily basis Yet another reason I'm glad I'm in HR and don't need to deal with the general public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Guys like Smith are just nasty and vindictive ****s I wish him pain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_razors_edge Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Alright for you two you can get away with speaking to them on the phone, I've got to go into their flea pits on a daily basis I think you'll find doing house visits is part of my job too sadly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Benoit Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I think you'll find doing house visits is part of my job too sadly Unlucky bud. What area in Fife are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_razors_edge Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Unlucky bud. What area in Fife are you? Cowdenbeath area mate. But that includes cardenden, lochgelly, ballingry, lochore, kelty, hill of heath, Kingseat, lumphinnans and crossgates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Scruff Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Doing the rounds on FB at the moment - make of it what you will. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to ?100... If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this... The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay ?1. ... The sixth would pay ?3. The seventh would pay ?7.. The eighth would pay ?12. The ninth would pay ?18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay ?59. So, that's what they decided to do.. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by ?20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just ?80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the ?20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that ?20 divided by six is ?3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid ?2 instead of ?3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid ?5 instead of ?7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid ?9 instead of ?12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid ?14 instead of ?18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid ?49 instead of ?59 (16% saving). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a pound out of the ?20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got ?10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get ?10 back, when I got only ?2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 "Doing the rounds on facebook" is a wonderful euphemism. http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp "Hit 'Like', if you agree that Cancer is bad" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Doing the rounds on FB at the moment - make of it what you will. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to ?100... If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this... The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay ?1. ... The sixth would pay ?3. The seventh would pay ?7.. The eighth would pay ?12. The ninth would pay ?18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay ?59. So, that's what they decided to do.. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by ?20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just ?80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the ?20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that ?20 divided by six is ?3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid ?2 instead of ?3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid ?5 instead of ?7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid ?9 instead of ?12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid ?14 instead of ?18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid ?49 instead of ?59 (16% saving). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a pound out of the ?20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got ?10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get ?10 back, when I got only ?2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible I understand that this week the richest in our Country will get a tax reduction worth ?150k per year and the price of a pint(?3+) might go down by 1p. The poor are forced to pay all tax due whilst the rich have to be encouraged to pay any. Mind you you could read that out of what the Prof said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Parmesan Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 So, if I beat up a wealthy person the rounds get smaller but I'll have to go to the bar more often? Thanks, Professor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Benoit Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Cowdenbeath area mate. But that includes cardenden, lochgelly, ballingry, lochore, kelty, hill of heath, Kingseat, lumphinnans and crossgates The nice bits then Saying that did a council contract installing smoke alarms a few years back and despite what folk say about those areas the folk in general weren't too bad. Cardenden is a hole though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Wiseau Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 That tax thing is a the shitest thing I have ever seen - and I once watched the sequel to American Psycho. It has William Shatner in a starring role. PS. The article was not written by a professor of Economics and has been falsely attributed to various different sources over the years, so even if it was relevant to the cuts debate (it's not), you might as well be citing graffiti off the Ardmillan public toilet walls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Benoit Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 There's a sequel to American Psycho? William Shatner? Nothing to add to the debate but William ******* Shatner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling Archer Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Mila Kunis too if I remember correctly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_razors_edge Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 The nice bits then Saying that did a council contract installing smoke alarms a few years back and despite what folk say about those areas the folk in general weren't too bad. Cardenden is a hole though. If you think cardenden is a hole, you should go to ballingry, lochore, crosshill or glencraig! I work between kelty and ballingry mostly. Fun and games...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.