FORUMS FORUMS



  
FORUMS > The Sin Bin > Proof the "Trickle Down" effect is a myth?
128 posts in 10 pages 
<<   PREV  NEXT   >>
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman18060No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Jun 2023Jun 2023LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: Mintball "Yes. You keep repeating this. You have also stated that someone who isn't poor themselves shouldn't campaign for a fairer society. Strangely, you've yet to answer, AFAIK, the question of whether that means that, in your opinion, only slaves should have campaigned against slavery.

I what?

Are you drunk so early in the day?

If you'd been paying any attention at all, this has been discussed, more than once, on here. It has been pointed out, for instance, that you cannot simply walk into a foodbank and grab what you fancy. Checks are done first to ensure that you are in such need.

Current figures are between 5-600,000. The prediction is for this to hit the million mark this year rlStory – it's Sky News, so not something anyone could class as 'left-wing'rl. And that's without mentioning the Red Cross food parcels and the Save the Children spending.

Trying to pretend that need is only a matter of spending on the 'right' things is nothing other than the same sort of sheer nastiness of the likes of the liar IDS and his cronies. I hadn't quite placed you in that bracket before. I hope it's mere delusion on the basis of propaganda.

Conflating Word and anything other than Apple is revealing. Personally, I would vastly prefer not to use Word, but again, it's industry standard, regardless of it being dross. So I use it because I have little realistic choice in terms of compatibility.

And I use it on Macs, because those are the industry standard. Perhaps I should try going into an office next time and refusing to use the computers that are there and telling them that I'll only use something that that they can find that probably doesn't even exist.

I can imagine that working well.

Quark is rather old hat these days. Priced themselves out of the market stupidly and generally replaced by Adobe InDesign – the new industry standard, although whether that will remain the case now they're trying to up charges by only making upgrades available as downloads remains to be seen. Personally, in my work, I use InDesign for page make-up, plus Illustrator, PhotoShop and LightRoom for graphics and photographic work.

I suspect that you didn't think that I did anything other than write, did you?

At least I have some.

According to a brief 2012 report in the Observer, "ethi-tech ... has yet to get going". rlStoryrl

So perhaps I should jack in my work altogether and find another job. One that doesn't use any tech at all. Obviously. Although given that the highest level of tech we used when I started in journalism was typewriters, one can hardly predict what job will be a nice, safe, tech-free zone in a short time in the future, can one?

I await with interest your response on ethics. And no, I don't mean a county to the east of London.

So, let's try this old one again

I think it is admirable that you seek to see what in your eyes is a better society - for me it is about being realistic i.e. what is genuinely possible. I mentioned times when fairness/equality was forced on people and it didn't work. Given the chance it would appear most people prefer a society where opportunity is available to better yourself at the expense of others.

On food banks - it is half of 1% of the population - this is unacceptable and your quite correct in that - however how many people do we have willingly living on the streets and how many of them use food banks? What I am trying to understand is what is the true increase and how much of that is down to cuts in benefits? Saying a million people is too sensationalised a number to be accurate.

On benefits - the genuine claimers i.e. the mentally/physically disabled society has an obligation to support these people. Of the rest it depends on your view of what benefits should provide. Should they provide for a very basic existence or should they provide for a lifestyle as if you were working? Should those on benefits be better off than somebody who is prepared to go out and work?

On ethics - I have my own standards of how I treat people - that is what matters to me. I will give a chance to a young person wherever possible - and in that my actions are tangible/verifiable and speak much about the person I am than an words on a thread in a nameless message board. I have numerous Apple products, even though I know their business ethics 'may' be questionable - why because they improve the quality of my own life. I know what is coming now - my ethics stink etc - but I bet if you look around at all the products you use to enhance your life a sizeable chunk will fall into the same ethical category. It is almost impossible to avoid them.

I suspect you would like to be a full time writer - your blog heading suggests you are? However I suspect this is a market where capacity far exceeds demand and it is difficult to making a living from it full time.

I have said this again - the world is bad place where equality simply doesn't/cannot exist. Every human is different with different experiences, different morals, different ideals and very different methods in how they hope to achieve their goals to standardise that is unrealistic.

On jobs paying a living wage - of the 34m working in this country the stats suggest 5m are earning below the living wage i.e. 14% that still says 86% are earning above the living wage. How many are drawing more on benefits - all included i.e. rent, child support, rates support etc - in a week than the living wage for 40 hours work after tax and NI.

RankPostsTeam
International Star3605No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Jul 201212 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
May 2016May 2016LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: Sal Paradise "
On jobs paying a living wage - of the 34m working in this country the stats suggest 5m are earning below the living wage i.e. 14% that still says 86% are earning above the living wage. How many are drawing more on benefits - all included i.e. rent, child support, rates support etc - in a week than the living wage for 40 hours work after tax and NI.'"


That is the endless loop that, if a politician could fix, would ensure him/her the Prime Ministers job for a long time.

1. You earn less than the notational "living wage".
2. You are below the Income Tax threshold and pay miniscule amounts of NIS
3. You are entitled to tax credits to top up your income.
3. Your nett take from the Benefits Agency exceeds your nett contribution, but you are working, you are one of the good guys and not a scrounger.
4. Repeat for decades.

Meantime the employer benefits from cheap labour which only stays because the benefits system allow them to be housed and fed and the employee continues to be a nett draw-down on the tax take for decades.

At least it keeps some civil servants in a job I suppose.

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman47951No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Aug 2017Jul 2017LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: Sal Paradise "I think it is admirable that you seek to see what in your eyes is a better society - for me it is about being realistic i.e. what is genuinely possible. I mentioned times when fairness/equality was forced on people and it didn't work. Given the chance it would appear most people prefer a society where opportunity is available to better yourself at the expense of others...'"


I think that you're conflating things.

It would be factually correct that some people, in the UK, today, feel that fairness and equality are "forced" on them. The B&B business where the owner doesn't like gays.

They want to be able to run a business where they can refuse to serve customers on the basis of an individual belief about an entire group.

As Jerry has pointed out in the past, this is no different from the 'no blacks or dogs' signs of a few decades ago.

Change to something fairer and more equal was forced on people by law.

What sort of percentage of the population today would really think that being able to post such signs again would be acceptable?

The point is that we can – in the UK – occasions of greater fairness and equality being created by, one might say, legal "force". And the majority accept it and move on – move forward.

An idea of equality/fairness is not the sole preserve of the USSR or the Eastern Bloc.

Indeed, if this country (and others) had not made many other moves forward, and changes to law etc over the centuries, where do you think we would be today?

Quote: Sal Paradise "... On food banks - it is half of 1% of the population - this is unacceptable and your quite correct in that - however how many people do we have willingly living on the streets and how many of them use food banks? What I am trying to understand is what is the true increase and how much of that is down to cuts in benefits? Saying a million people is too sensationalised a number to be accurate...'"


Those doing the foodbank work at the point of handing it out don't just give it to anyone who walks through the doors. Much of the increase in foodbank use is down to falling wages (and hours – underemployment, in other words) combined with the rising cost of living.

Huge numbers of those using foodbanks are in work.

On those living on the streets, this has been rising for years. It's been shown over the years to include many ex-service personnel who can find it very difficult to fit back into civilian life. There is also a long-term issue of not enough safe, residential care for people with mental illnesses.

Only this morning I spotted a story about numbers of children locked in police cells for exactly the same reason. rlStoryrl.

Quote: Sal Paradise "On benefits - the genuine claimers i.e. the mentally/physically disabled society has an obligation to support these people. Of the rest it depends on your view of what benefits should provide. Should they provide for a very basic existence or should they provide for a lifestyle as if you were working? Should those on benefits be better off than somebody who is prepared to go out and work?'"


A number of points here, but I'll stick with just two

Well, I'm not going to have a go at your ethics – I never have

It would be part of what I'd ideally do, although in terms of day-to-day work, sub-editing is probably one of my favourite aspects – I like the geekiness of solving layout puzzles, for instance, and doing (some of) the photography that I do.

Quote: Sal Paradise "I have said this again - the world is bad place where equality simply doesn't/cannot exist. Every human is different with different experiences, different morals, different ideals and very different methods in how they hope to achieve their goals to standardise that is unrealistic...'"


And again, I'd say that much of what we take for granted today had to be worked for in the past and would have been resented by some at the time.

Equally, to reiterate

I'm not entirely sure I'm getting what you mean here, but if I do ...

To clarify, most people with a child will receive child benefit.

Otherwise, this seems to be returning to the issue of a situation where (some) businesses are happy for the taxpayer to pay subsidise them. That – and the cost of living in general and housing in particular.

Just to take this one a little further (and again, it's been discussed before).

We have a shortage of housing, which is a factor in further driving up the costs of housing to what some people are suggesting is dangerous in terms of yet another bubble, and what others certainly see as unsustainable.

If you were to embark on a massive council house building/refurbishment programme you could, in the slightly longer term, deal with the housing shortage. It would also mean that many people would no longer need housing benefit or possibly even other in-work benefits, because their own pay might stretch further.

In the process, you'd create jobs in order to build or refurbish those homes, therefore taking at least some people out of unemployment (or underemployment) and thus cutting benefit costs. Indeed, if they're paid a decent wage, they then start paying tax and NI. They also have money to spend in local economies – at the pub, watching RL, at the cinema or the local restaurant. We know where that goes – more job creation etc. And all that is good for the national economy.

To repeater[/i society is possible and, even at the most pragmatic level, since it would benefit the majority of individuals and the country as a whole, would seem to be a worthwhile and sensible aim.

The situation we have at the moment, on the other hand, is unsustainable. Endlessly rising housing costs at the same time that many jobs are continuing to be cut – it's not just new jobs that have limited or zero-contract hours, but many existing jobs are being reduced.

That's one of the factors that is hampering local economies and the national one.

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman18060No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Jun 2023Jun 2023LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: JerryChicken "That is the endless loop that, if a politician could fix, would ensure him/her the Prime Ministers job for a long time.

1. You earn less than the notational "living wage".
2. You are below the Income Tax threshold and pay miniscule amounts of NIS
3. You are entitled to tax credits to top up your income.
3. Your nett take from the Benefits Agency exceeds your nett contribution, but you are working, you are one of the good guys and not a scrounger.
4. Repeat for decades.

Meantime the employer benefits from cheap labour which only stays because the benefits system allow them to be housed and fed and the employee continues to be a nett draw-down on the tax take for decades.

At least it keeps some civil servants in a job I suppose.'"


Nobody on here has yet proved this mythical government supporting big business - is the amount paid to supplement incomes of the lower paid higher or lower than the sum of NI, Corporation tax, Tax on Dividends combined? If its lower then the myth that government supports big business is just that a myth.

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman47951No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Aug 2017Jul 2017LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: Sal Paradise "Nobody on here has yet proved this mythical government supporting big business - is the amount paid to supplement incomes of the lower paid higher or lower than the sum of NI, Corporation tax, Tax on Dividends combined? If its lower then the myth that government supports big business is just that a myth.'"


Off the top of my head.

RankPostsTeam
International Star3605No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Jul 201212 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
May 2016May 2016LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: Sal Paradise "Nobody on here has yet proved this mythical government supporting big business - is the amount paid to supplement incomes of the lower paid higher or lower than the sum of NI, Corporation tax, Tax on Dividends combined? If its lower then the myth that government supports big business is just that a myth.'"


Taxes on the business profits are irrelevant to the argument on direct taxation on wages, you may as well argue that a busy business pays more tax on fuel for their deliveries, more VAT on the supplies of paperwork they generate etc, its peripheral but not relevant.

If you want to see what Working Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits for working people can amount to then here's a link rlhttps://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/payments-entitlement/entitlement/how-worked-out.htmrl these are maximum figures of course and dependant on qualifying circumstances but as you can see they are not small amounts and frankly they shouldn't be because they were designed to make it preferable for the unemployed to find SOME work rather than NO work, designed to make it more profitable to get off the unemployed register than to remain on it.

I'm sure you'll understand from those figures what the potential level of subsidy to employment is for an employer, it may not happen in your business sector but I do know for a fact that in the world of low minimum hours contracts in the hotel industry its normal for an employee to state at the time of job application that they are "only looking for 16 hours" or 20 hours, or whatever the tax break figure is that year and it suits both employer and employee for there is a big drop-off in credits when you work above the specified figure.

It also suits the government of the day of course for two people splitting 32 hours a week between them is the main measure of their policy success, no-one ever asks "Ah but how much do you pay out in tax subsidies", more "look at the employment figures dropping, we must be successful"

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman18060No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Jun 2023Jun 2023LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: Mintball "I think that you're conflating things.

It would be factually correct that some people, in the UK, today, feel that fairness and equality are "forced" on them. The B&B business where the owner doesn't like gays.

They want to be able to run a business where they can refuse to serve customers on the basis of an individual belief about an entire group.

As Jerry has pointed out in the past, this is no different from the 'no blacks or dogs' signs of a few decades ago.

Change to something fairer and more equal was forced on people by law.

What sort of percentage of the population today would really think that being able to post such signs again would be acceptable?

The point is that we can – in the UK – occasions of greater fairness and equality being created by, one might say, legal "force". And the majority accept it and move on – move forward.

An idea of equality/fairness is not the sole preserve of the USSR or the Eastern Bloc.

Indeed, if this country (and others) had not made many other moves forward, and changes to law etc over the centuries, where do you think we would be today?

Those doing the foodbank work at the point of handing it out don't just give it to anyone who walks through the doors. Much of the increase in foodbank use is down to falling wages (and hours – underemployment, in other words) combined with the rising cost of living.

Huge numbers of those using foodbanks are in work.

On those living on the streets, this has been rising for years. It's been shown over the years to include many ex-service personnel who can find it very difficult to fit back into civilian life. There is also a long-term issue of not enough safe, residential care for people with mental illnesses.

Only this morning I spotted a story about numbers of children locked in police cells for exactly the same reason. rlStoryrl.

A number of points here, but I'll stick with just two society is possible and, even at the most pragmatic level, since it would benefit the majority of individuals and the country as a whole, would seem to be a worthwhile and sensible aim.

The situation we have at the moment, on the other hand, is unsustainable. Endlessly rising housing costs at the same time that many jobs are continuing to be cut – it's not just new jobs that have limited or zero-contract hours, but many existing jobs are being reduced.

That's one of the factors that is hampering local economies and the national one.'"


Some really interesting points much of I actually agree with - I think you are misunderstanding me or being deliberately obtuse. The point about equality is people don't like it forced upon them, they don't want the opportunity to succeed and reap the rewards of that success taken away because of an ideology that doesn't allow it. That is a world away from 'No whites served here' as we had in Bradford during the last petrol tankers dispute.

My idea of fairness/equality is access to opportunity - in this country there are very limited barriers to starting your own business. Anyone from any walk of life can do it they just need the drive and persistence to see it through. What I struggle with is the envy to those who take the plunge and risk it all from those without the balls.

Housing is an interesting one - I think we all agree there is a need for more housing, the question that needs answering, is the lack of housing a reflection of the inability of potential buyer to access the funds to complete the purchase?

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman18060No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Jun 2023Jun 2023LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: JerryChicken "Taxes on the business profits are irrelevant to the argument on direct taxation on wages, you may as well argue that a busy business pays more tax on fuel for their deliveries, more VAT on the supplies of paperwork they generate etc, its peripheral but not relevant.

If you want to see what Working Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits for working people can amount to then here's a link rlhttps://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/payments-entitlement/entitlement/how-worked-out.htmrl these are maximum figures of course and dependant on qualifying circumstances but as you can see they are not small amounts and frankly they shouldn't be because they were designed to make it preferable for the unemployed to find SOME work rather than NO work, designed to make it more profitable to get off the unemployed register than to remain on it.

I'm sure you'll understand from those figures what the potential level of subsidy to employment is for an employer, it may not happen in your business sector but I do know for a fact that in the world of low minimum hours contracts in the hotel industry its normal for an employee to state at the time of job application that they are "only looking for 16 hours" or 20 hours, or whatever the tax break figure is that year and it suits both employer and employee for there is a big drop-off in credits when you work above the specified figure.

It also suits the government of the day of course for two people splitting 32 hours a week between them is the main measure of their policy success, no-one ever asks "Ah but how much do you pay out in tax subsidies", more "look at the employment figures dropping, we must be successful"'"


Gary - if your are saying government is supporting big business and thus enabling them to pay less wages then you should be able to produce the data that qualifies that. As yet nobody has shown the amount paid to subsidise the low wages of the people they employ is less than the contribution to the pool made by business, through employers NI - a tax on employing people, corporation tax - a tax on the success of a business and tax on dividends - another tax on the success of a business. I am not talking about VAT, fuel duty etc.

My point has always been remove the employers NI on low pay and pay it directly to the worker i.e. increase the minimum wage by 14% therefore cutting out the need to collect and redistribute the tax. That seems logical and efficient to me but I suspect that would be a loss to the treasury?

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman18060No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Jun 2023Jun 2023LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: Mintball "Off the top of my head.'"


As I posted earlier if this is so obvious the data must be there - I suspect it isn't the case just a scare tactic from the left.

None of the above prove the point your raising that big companies can pay lower wages because the government pick up the difference?

What the above shows is government trying to encourage inward investment and job creation/maintenance.

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman47951No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Aug 2017Jul 2017LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: Sal Paradise "As I posted earlier if this is so obvious the data must be there - I suspect it isn't the case just a scare tactic from the left.

None of the above prove the point your raising that big companies can pay lower wages because the government pick up the difference?

What the above shows is government trying to encourage inward investment and job creation/maintenance.'"


Two pointsExpenditure would be 2.7% higher if there were no NMW and 5.5% lower if the NMW were set at £5 per hour. The scale of spending is particularly sensitive for groups not eligible for the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC)" [my emphasis, but it's all relevant]

rlFull reportrl.

Mind, one of the pledges from late last year to deal with in-work benefits was to say that some people aren't working enough hours. Because obviously we know that underemployment doesn't exist and people can simply work the hours that they need/want.

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman18060No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Jun 2023Jun 2023LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: Mintball "Two pointsExpenditure would be 2.7% higher if there were no NMW and 5.5% lower if the NMW were set at £5 per hour. The scale of spending is particularly sensitive for groups not eligible for the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC)" [my emphasis, but it's all relevant]

rlFull reportrl.

Mind, one of the pledges from late last year to deal with in-work benefits was to say that some people aren't working enough hours. Because obviously we know that underemployment doesn't exist and people can simply work the hours that they need/want.'"


We must in this agree to disagree - the figures must not justify your position or you would have produced them. I cannot say you are wrong as I cannot produce figures to the contrary. It could be in a company such as Morrisons that the total tax take in the categories I suggested is greater than the benefits their staff receive in which case Morrisons are supporting society as a whole. Asda may be the opposite but in the round until somebody can prove otherwise we must accept your point to be unproven?

RankPostsTeam
International Star3605No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Jul 201212 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
May 2016May 2016LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: Sal Paradise "We must in this agree to disagree - the figures must not justify your position or you would have produced them. I cannot say you are wrong as I cannot produce figures to the contrary. It could be in a company such as Morrisons that the total tax take in the categories I suggested is greater than the benefits their staff receive in which case Morrisons are supporting society as a whole. Asda may be the opposite but in the round until somebody can prove otherwise we must accept your point to be unproven?'"


The main problem is the complexity of the tax credit system itself, I posted a link to the HMRC advisory page on tax credits but they are very careful on there to state that those figures are the maximum that any family could expect to receive, there is no chart that I can link you to and say "A person on 20 hours at NMW will draw £xxx in tax credits" because it simply doesn't work like that.

To apply for tax credits, working or child and for both you have to be in employment, you have a document which from memory was a dozen pages long (I drew some of my entitlement down in the year of my wifes unemployment, she was entitled to child tax credits, I was entitled to working tax credits), and ultimately its the job of an assessor to declare what your prize will be, I say that because having spoken to them on at least half a dozen occasions during our application I was convinced that none of them knew how the system worked and I was given totally different answers to the same questions on at least two occasions.

Ultimately they then overpaid me and 12 months later asked for some of it back, not because I'd gone and earned too much but because one of the boxes on the form was ticked wrong after I filled it in following their telephone advice however the reward for that year before they asked for it all back was greater than my tax contribution that year - having contributed for forty previous years without ever claiming a penny I didn't feel too guilty but I've been put off ever having to deal with the incompetent barstards again - even got my MP on the case and he involved a senior civil servant, ultimately it was their word against mine - tw*ts.

So, are we subsidising employers who choose to employ people on low hours and at NMW by then topping up their pay with tax credits which are in effect a misnomer because they aren't a credit against tax that an individual has paid but simply a top-up payment to discourage them from thinking that it would be more beneficial not to work at all - I think we are subsidising employers who deliberately employ non-skilled staff in this manner but if you need evidence then I'll let you go through the claim process because I for one don't want to have another go on that merry-go-round.

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman47951No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Aug 2017Jul 2017LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: Sal Paradise "We must in this agree to disagree - the figures must not justify your position or you would have produced them...'"


It's mainly that such specific figures are extremely hard to get hold of via the internet, although there is a huge amount of stuff on individual companies and the living wage, which is what I've essentially picked up on in my previous post.

But I think that there's a validity to pointing back to that blog post of mine, from a couple of years ago, that I linked to on an earlier post.

How much more help could big business want, than being invited onto public health committees and then, just two or three months later, effectively being given free advertising in the guise of public health information, paid for by the taxpayer?

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman37704No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Aug 2018Aug 2018LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: Sal Paradise "We must in this agree to disagree - the figures must not justify your position or you would have produced them. I cannot say you are wrong as I cannot produce figures to the contrary. It could be in a company such as Morrisons that the total tax take in the categories I suggested is greater than the benefits their staff receive in which case Morrisons are supporting society as a whole. Asda may be the opposite but in the round until somebody can prove otherwise we must accept your point to be unproven?'"


Please will you desist with the straw man argument about company taxation versus in-work benefits.

None of us, not one single person that I know of, has ever sat down and costed out what he puts in against what he takes out. It's a stupid and fulite argument.

Companies pay tax at the prevailing rates. That is a given, apart from those who choose to offshore or employ aggressive tax avoidance schemes. Many of these companies employ people who have to rely on in-work benefits in order to subsist. The companies who benefit from their employees receiving in-work benefits are being subsidised through general taxation. i.e. some of the tax that you or I pay, along with the corporation tax and employers' NI that companies pay, is going towards in-work benefits. If you can't see that in-work benefits are a direct subsidy from the taxpayer to employers and landlords then I really do wonder about your method of thinking

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman14845No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Dec 200123 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Oct 2021Jul 2021LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: cod'ead "Please will you desist with the straw man argument about company taxation versus in-work benefits.

None of us, not one single person that I know of, has ever sat down and costed out what he puts in against what he takes out. It's a stupid and fulite argument.

Companies pay tax at the prevailing rates. That is a given, apart from those who choose to offshore or employ aggressive tax avoidance schemes. Many of these companies employ people who have to rely on in-work benefits in order to subsist. The companies who benefit from their employees receiving in-work benefits are being subsidised through general taxation. i.e. some of the tax that you or I pay, along with the corporation tax and employers' NI that companies pay, is going towards in-work benefits. If you can't see that in-work benefits are a direct subsidy from the taxpayer to employers and landlords then I really do wonder about your method of thinking'"


It is primarily a subsidy to the employees concerned.

128 posts in 10 pages 
<<   PREV  NEXT   >>
128 posts in 10 pages 
<<   PREV  NEXT   >>



All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.

Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.

RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.

Copyright 1999 - 2024 RLFANS.COM

You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.



Please Support RLFANS.COM


3.0322265625:10
RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
44m
Looking for a Good Time Connect with Local Ladies in Your T
hcc
1
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
7s
Ground Improvements
Trojan Horse
233
1m
Game - Song Titles
Boss Hog
40832
1m
Co-Captains for 2025
MjM
15
2m
BORED The Band Name Game
Boss Hog
63297
6m
Matty Ashurst testimonial dinner
Big lads mat
1
7m
Transfer Talk V5
Jack Burton
546
8m
2025 Shirt
--[ WW ]--
27
9m
2025 Squad Numbers
Jake the Peg
12
9m
ALL NEW 49ERS ERA LEEDS UTD THREAD
MeanwoodGuy
2630
10m
Film game
karetaker
5859
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Looking for a Good Time Connect with Local Ladies in Your T
hcc
1
TODAY
Matty Ashurst testimonial dinner
Big lads mat
1
TODAY
2025 Squad Numbers
Jake the Peg
12
TODAY
England Women Las Vegas train-on squad
RLFANS News
1
TODAY
Quiz night
H.G.S.A
1
TODAY
Co-Captains for 2025
MjM
15
TODAY
Cornwall has a new owner
CM Punk
2
TODAY
Callum Shaw
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Squad Numbers
phe13
4
TODAY
Rhinos squad numbers
Rixy
1
TODAY
Squad numbers
Warrior Wing
8
TODAY
Mat Crowther pre season update
Dunkirk Spir
1
TODAY
Mike Cooper podcast
Wires71
10
TODAY
Shirt reveal coming soon
Trojan Horse
50
TODAY
Opening Championship and League One Fixtures for 2025 Released
RLFANS News
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS
POSTSONLINEREGISTRATIONSRECORD
19.65M 1,550 ↑1580,15614,103
LOGIN HERE
or REGISTER for more features!.

When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
RLFANS Match Centre
 Thu 13th Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R1
20:00
Wigan
v
Leigh
 Fri 14th Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R1
20:00
Hull KR
v
Castleford
20:00
Catalans
v
Hull FC
 Sat 15th Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R1
15:00
Leeds
v
Wakefield
17:30
St.Helens
v
Salford
       Championship 2025-R1
18:00
Toulouse
v
Widnes
 Sun 16th Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R1
15:00
Huddersfield
v
Warrington
       Championship 2025-R1
15:00
Bradford
v
LondonB
15:00
Featherstone
v
Doncaster
15:00
Oldham
v
York
15:00
Sheffield
v
Halifax
15:00
Barrow
v
Hunslet
 Thu 20th Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R2
20:00
Wakefield
v
Hull KR
 Fri 21st Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R2
20:00
Warrington
v
Catalans
20:00
Hull FC
v
Wigan
 Sat 22nd Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R2
15:00
Salford
v
Leeds
20:00
Castleford
v
St.Helens
 Sun 23rd Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R2
14:30
Leigh
v
Huddersfield
       League One 2025-R1
15:00
Cornwall
v
Workington
15:00
Dewsbury
v
Crusaders
15:00
Goole V
v
Midlands
15:00
Rochdale
v
Keighley
15:00
Swinton
v
Whitehaven
 Fri 28th Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R3
20:00
Huddersfield
v
Hull FC
20:00
Hull KR
v
Salford
20:00
Leigh
v
Catalans
 Sat 1st Mar 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R3
14:30
Wakefield
v
St.Helens
21:30
Wigan
v
Warrington
 Sun 2nd Mar 2025
     National Rugby League 2024-R1
04:30
Penrith
v
Cronulla
06:30
Canberra
v
NZ Warriors
     Mens Super League XXX-R3
15:00
Leeds
v
Castleford
 Thu 6th Mar 2025
     National Rugby League 2024-R1
09:00
Sydney
v
Brisbane
     Mens Super League XXX-R4
20:00
Hull FC
v
Leigh
 Fri 7th Mar 2025
     National Rugby League 2024-R1
07:00
Wests
v
Newcastle
09:00
Dolphins
v
Souths
     Mens Super League XXX-R4
20:00
Castleford
v
Salford
20:00
St.Helens
v
Hull KR
 Sat 8th Mar 2025
     National Rugby League 2024-R1
06:30
St.George
v
Canterbury
08:35
Manly
v
NQL Cowboys
       League One 2025-R2
15:00
Goole V
v
Dewsbury
     Mens Super League XXX-R4
17:30
Catalans
v
Leeds
 Sun 9th Mar 2025
     National Rugby League 2024-R1
05:05
Melbourne
v
Parramatta
       League One 2025-R2
13:00
Rochdale
v
Cornwall
14:00
Midlands
v
Workington
15:00
Whitehaven
v
Keighley
17:00
Newcastle
v
Swinton
     Mens Super League XXX-R4
17:30
Warrington
v
Wakefield
17:30
Wigan
v
Huddersfield
 Thu 13th Mar 2025
     National Rugby League 2024-R2
09:00
Newcastle
v
Dolphins
 Fri 14th Mar 2025
     National Rugby League 2024-R2
07:00
NZ Warriors
v
Manly
09:00
Penrith
v
Sydney
 Sat 15th Mar 2025
     National Rugby League 2024-R2
04:00
St.George
v
Souths
06:30
NQL Cowboys
v
Cronulla
08:35
Canberra
v
Brisbane
 Sun 16th Mar 2025
     National Rugby League 2024-R2
05:05
Parramatta
v
Wests
07:15
Canterbury
v
Gold Coast
 Thu 20th Mar 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R5
20:00
Salford
v
Huddersfield
 Fri 21st Mar 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R5
20:00
St.Helens
v
Warrington
20:00
Wakefield
v
Hull FC
 Sat 22nd Mar 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R5
15:00
Castleford
v
Catalans
17:30
Leeds
v
Wigan
 Sun 23rd Mar 2025
       League One 2025-R3
13:00
Cornwall
v
Newcastle
     Mens Super League XXX-R5
15:00
Hull KR
v
Leigh
       League One 2025-R3
15:00
Goole V
v
Crusaders
15:00
Keighley
v
Midlands
15:00
Swinton
v
Dewsbury
15:00
Whitehaven
v
Rochdale
 Thu 27th Mar 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R6
20:00
Castleford
v
Hull FC
 Fri 28th Mar 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R6
20:00
Leigh
v
Wakefield
20:00
Warrington
v
Leeds
 Sat 29th Mar 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R6
14:30
Wigan
v
Salford
17:30
Catalans
v
St.Helens
 Sun 30th Mar 2025
       League One 2025-R4
13:00
Cornwall
v
Whitehaven
     Mens Super League XXX-R6
15:00
Huddersfield
v
Hull KR
       League One 2025-R4
15:00
Dewsbury
v
Keighley
15:00
Newcastle
v
Midlands
15:00
Swinton
v
Goole V
15:00
Workington
v
Crusaders
 Sun 6th Apr 2025
       League One 2025-R5
14:00
Midlands
v
Dewsbury
14:30
Crusaders
v
Cornwall
15:00
Keighley
v
Swinton
15:00
Rochdale
v
Workington
15:00
Whitehaven
v
Newcastle
 Thu 10th Apr 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R7
20:00
Salford
v
Leeds
 Fri 11th Apr 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R7
20:00
Hull KR
v
Wigan
20:00
St.Helens
v
Wakefield
 Sat 12th Apr 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R7
17:30
Warrington
v
Hull FC
20:00
Castleford
v
Leigh
 Sun 13th Apr 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R7
15:00
Huddersfield
v
Catalans
 Thu 17th Apr 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R8
20:00
Wakefield
v
Castleford
 Fri 18th Apr 2025
       League One 2025-R6
14:00
Midlands
v
Crusaders
15:00
Dewsbury
v
Newcastle
15:00
Rochdale
v
Swinton
15:00
Workington
v
Whitehaven
18:30
Keighley
v
Goole V
     Mens Super League XXX-R8
20:00
Hull FC
v
Hull KR
20:00
Wigan
v
St.Helens
20:00
Leeds
v
Huddersfield
 Sat 19th Apr 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R8
20:00
Leigh
v
Warrington
20:00
Catalans
v
Salford
 Thu 24th Apr 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R9
20:00
Warrington
v
St.Helens
20:00
Leeds
v
Hull KR
 Fri 25th Apr 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R9
20:00
Salford
v
Leigh
 Sat 26th Apr 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R9
15:00
Huddersfield
v
Castleford
17:30
Catalans
v
Wakefield
 Sun 27th Apr 2025
       League One 2025-R7
13:00
Cornwall
v
Keighley
14:30
Crusaders
v
Whitehaven
     Mens Super League XXX-R9
15:00
Hull FC
v
Wigan
       League One 2025-R7
15:00
Dewsbury
v
Rochdale
15:00
Newcastle
v
Goole V
15:00
Workington
v
Swinton
 Fri 2nd May 2025
       League One 2025-R8
20:00
Newcastle
v
Workington
 Sat 3rd May 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R10
15:00
Leigh
v
Catalans
       League One 2025-R8
15:00
Rochdale
v
Goole V
     Mens Super League XXX-R10
17:15
Hull KR
v
Salford
19:30
St.Helens
v
Leeds
 Sun 4th May 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R10
13:00
Huddersfield
v
Hull FC
       League One 2025-R8
13:00
Cornwall
v
Midlands
15:00
Swinton
v
Crusaders
15:00
Whitehaven
v
Dewsbury
     Mens Super League XXX-R10
15:15
Wigan
v
Warrington
17:30
Castleford
v
Wakefield
 Sun 11th May 2025
       League One 2025-R9
14:30
Crusaders
v
Newcastle
15:00
Dewsbury
v
Cornwall
15:00
Keighley
v
Workington
15:00
Rochdale
v
Midlands
15:00
Whitehaven
v
Goole V
 Thu 15th May 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R11
20:00
St.Helens
v
Catalans
 Fri 16th May 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R11
20:00
Leeds
v
Hull FC
20:00
Wigan
v
Leigh
 Sat 17th May 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R11
15:00
Hull KR
v
Huddersfield
 Sun 18th May 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R11
15:00
Wakefield
v
Warrington
17:30
Castleford
v
Salford
 Thu 22nd May 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R12
20:00
Leigh
v
Hull FC
 Fri 23rd May 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R12
20:00
Huddersfield
v
St.Helens
20:00
Warrington
v
Hull KR
 Sat 24th May 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R12
14:30
Castleford
v
Leeds
17:30
Catalans
v
Wigan
 Sun 25th May 2025
       League One 2025-R10
14:00
Midlands
v
Whitehaven
     Mens Super League XXX-R12
15:00
Wakefield
v
Salford
       League One 2025-R10
15:00
Keighley
v
Crusaders
15:00
Rochdale
v
Newcastle
15:00
Swinton
v
Cornwall
15:00
Workington
v
Goole V
 Thu 29th May 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R13
20:00
Huddersfield
v
Leigh
 Fri 30th May 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R13
20:00
Hull KR
v
St.Helens
20:00
Salford
v
Wigan
 Sat 31st May 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R13
14:30
Leeds
v
Wakefield
17:30
Catalans
v
Hull FC
 Sun 1st Jun 2025
       League One 2025-R11
13:00
Cornwall
v
Goole V
14:00
Midlands
v
Swinton
14:30
Crusaders
v
Rochdale
     Mens Super League XXX-R13
15:00
Warrington
v
Castleford
       League One 2025-R11
15:00
Newcastle
v
Keighley
15:00
Workington
v
Dewsbury
 Fri 13th Jun 2025
       League One 2025-R12
19:00
Dewsbury
v
Goole V
     Mens Super League XXX-R14
20:00
Hull FC
v
Castleford
20:00
Hull KR
v
Catalans
 Sat 14th Jun 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R14
15:00
Huddersfield
v
Wigan
17:30
Leeds
v
Warrington
 Sun 15th Jun 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R14
14:30
Wakefield
v
Leigh
       League One 2025-R12
14:30
Crusaders
v
Midlands
     Mens Super League XXX-R14
15:00
Salford
v
St.Helens
       League One 2025-R12
15:00
Keighley
v
Rochdale
15:00
Swinton
v
Workington
15:00
Whitehaven
v
Cornwall
ALL SCORES PROVIDED BY RLFANS.COM (SETTINGS)
Matches on TV
Thu 13th Feb
SL
20:00
Wigan-Leigh
Fri 14th Feb
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Castleford
SL
20:00
Catalans-Hull FC
Sat 15th Feb
SL
15:00
Leeds-Wakefield
SL
17:30
St.Helens-Salford
Sun 16th Feb
SL
15:00
Huddersfield-Warrington
Thu 20th Feb
SL
20:00
Wakefield-Hull KR
Fri 21st Feb
SL
20:00
Warrington-Catalans
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Wigan
Sat 22nd Feb
SL
15:00
Salford-Leeds
SL
20:00
Castleford-St.Helens
Sun 23rd Feb
SL
14:30
Leigh-Huddersfield
Fri 28th Feb
SL
20:00
Huddersfield-Hull FC
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Salford
SL
20:00
Leigh-Catalans
Sat 1st Mar
SL
14:30
Wakefield-St.Helens
SL
21:30
Wigan-Warrington
Sun 2nd Mar
SL
15:00
Leeds-Castleford
Thu 6th Mar
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Leigh
Fri 7th Mar
SL
20:00
Castleford-Salford
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Mens Betfred Super League XXVIII ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wigan 29 768 338 430 48
Hull KR 29 731 344 387 44
Warrington 29 769 351 418 42
Leigh 29 580 442 138 33
Salford 28 556 561 -5 32
St.Helens 28 618 411 207 30
 
Catalans 27 475 427 48 30
Leeds 27 530 488 42 28
Huddersfield 27 468 658 -190 20
Castleford 27 425 735 -310 15
Hull FC 27 328 894 -566 6
LondonB 27 317 916 -599 6
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Betfred Championship 2024 ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wakefield 10 384 100 284 20
Widnes 10 260 171 89 15
Sheffield 9 270 139 131 14
Featherstone 10 290 211 79 12
Bradford 10 229 184 45 12
Doncaster 10 215 227 -12 9
 
Toulouse 8 186 150 36 8
Barrow 8 127 219 -92 8
Whitehaven 9 167 247 -80 7
Swinton 9 184 230 -46 6
York 10 183 229 -46 6
Batley 9 130 200 -70 6
Halifax 10 170 285 -115 6
Dewsbury 10 144 247 -103 2
Hunslet 0 0 0 0 0
RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
44m
Looking for a Good Time Connect with Local Ladies in Your T
hcc
1
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
7s
Ground Improvements
Trojan Horse
233
1m
Game - Song Titles
Boss Hog
40832
1m
Co-Captains for 2025
MjM
15
2m
BORED The Band Name Game
Boss Hog
63297
6m
Matty Ashurst testimonial dinner
Big lads mat
1
7m
Transfer Talk V5
Jack Burton
546
8m
2025 Shirt
--[ WW ]--
27
9m
2025 Squad Numbers
Jake the Peg
12
9m
ALL NEW 49ERS ERA LEEDS UTD THREAD
MeanwoodGuy
2630
10m
Film game
karetaker
5859
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Looking for a Good Time Connect with Local Ladies in Your T
hcc
1
TODAY
Matty Ashurst testimonial dinner
Big lads mat
1
TODAY
2025 Squad Numbers
Jake the Peg
12
TODAY
England Women Las Vegas train-on squad
RLFANS News
1
TODAY
Quiz night
H.G.S.A
1
TODAY
Co-Captains for 2025
MjM
15
TODAY
Cornwall has a new owner
CM Punk
2
TODAY
Callum Shaw
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Squad Numbers
phe13
4
TODAY
Rhinos squad numbers
Rixy
1
TODAY
Squad numbers
Warrior Wing
8
TODAY
Mat Crowther pre season update
Dunkirk Spir
1
TODAY
Mike Cooper podcast
Wires71
10
TODAY
Shirt reveal coming soon
Trojan Horse
50
TODAY
Opening Championship and League One Fixtures for 2025 Released
RLFANS News
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS


Visit the RLFANS.COM SHOP
for more merchandise!