The great british e-bike scam

[GaRRy]

And Italian Women!!!!!

Young Italian Women

 

[103Alex1]

Very true, and sometimes people even get pushed to inflate the cost of their time. Years ago, when I was first asked to provide an expert witness service, I enquired as to the going rate, as I hadn't got a clue what might be a reasonable fee. The solicitor instructing me told me that they usually paid £140 +VAT per hour for experts from another government agency. There was me wondering if I'd have been seen as a bit cheeky if I asked for £20 per hour - I hope the shock didn't show on my face when I just nodded to him and said that £140 an hour sounded fine..................

I had similar when doing some work for a London client as part of a consortium a few years back. I was charging about £250/hr at the time (sadly most of which was going to an intermediary covering the liability policy (!)) .. but it was felt that a minimum hourly rate of £350 was needed in order for the client to perceive they had the right level of person on the job (i.e. competitive - but in terms of City prices). I put in for £380

It was specialist work I've since diversified away from but realistically, a rate of about £150 would likely have been proportionate. Price and value are rarely well aligned.

 

[103Alex1]

And Italian Women!!!!!

... having gone out with one for several months, I'll qualify my "like" with requiring the addition of a Swiss bank account and the stamina of a Somali marathon runner

 

[Kudoscycles]

Young Italian Women

Like Ferraris,high maintenance-exciting to drive but best not kept too long!!!!

 

[tillson]

M

The fact that these 'dysfunctional families' are still in a minority in this country doesnt mean that they always will be....then what ?

This isnt the place to start delving into subsidies, foreign aid and immigration policies but it all adds up to an unsustainable future for this country if allowed to continue.....problem is....who, exactly, has got the balls to start putting a stop to it?

This is something which I often wonder about. There is bound to be a tipping point at which any government which attempts to tackle and reduce the welfare bill, will simply be committing electoral suicide. Once this point has been reached, the situation is irretrievable and we are all passengers on a runaway train to financial ruin, hardship and misery. Everything that you have ever worked or strived for will have been for mothing because all of your assets will be consumed by the welfare monster and given away to the work shy and lazy. It won't be as obvious as the straightforward seizure of money and goods. Savings will be devalued, wages eroded by inflation, pension contributions stolen, house prices forced down.

Maybe we are at or very close to the tipping point now.

I know, first hand, of a 22 year old child who has 3 children of her own, by two different fathers, both of whom have vanished now that it is time to take resoponsibility for their actions. The child mother has been provided with a three bedroomed council house, a brochure from which to choose her new kitchen, vouchers to purchase carpets and furnishings, the services of a barrister to fight off social services, a social worker to fight her barrister and a steady stream of regular cash. These are just the things which immediately spring to mind.

The child who is in receipt of our assets has never contributed a single thing to society. If she or the scum which inpregnated her had never existed, the country would be a slightly better place. If the hoards like her had never existed, the country would be a far better place. Her three children, in all likelihood, will turn out to be criminals and will cause further unpleasentness for people who are unfortunate enough to be around them.

I believe that the only way to reverse this trend is to remove the vote from people who have never contributed. Why should they have a say in how tax money is spent when they never have or never will contribute?

 

[jazper53]

M



I believe that the only way to reverse this trend is to remove the vote from people who have never contributed. Why should they have a say in how tax money is spent when they never have or never will contribute?

That is not a solution but, some sought of extreme right wing anti-democratic nonsense. Blaming the jobless for all the economic woes that have affected the global economy is like beating the kids for losing your job. God forbid if ever such stupidity becomes popular, as civil unrest is all we can look forward to

 

[flecc]

I believe that the only way to reverse this trend is to remove the vote from people who have never contributed. Why should they have a say in how tax money is spent when they never have or never will contribute?

I completely agree, democracy should not be an excuse to have universal suffrage. There are outer limits to everything.
.

 

[eddieo]

probably one of the poor things now limited to £26000 a year and screaming about it.... The sysem was developed as a safety net not for breeding a whole new underclass dependent on the state

Support for 12 months and that's the end of it...where are the familys in all this I wonder? probably living round the corner with the boyfiends/fathers next door, laughing at the rest of us...

 

[Old_Dave]

The sysem was developed as a safety net not for breeding a whole new underclass dependent on the state

Maybe with the recent announcement of army cutbacks we will have an available 'whole new underclass' of cannon fodder

 

[GaRRy]

probably one of the poor things now limited to £26000 a year and screaming about it.... The sysem was developed as a safety net not for breeding a whole new underclass dependent on the state

Support for 12 months and that's the end of it...where are the familys in all this I wonder? probably living round the corner with the boyfiends/fathers next door, laughing at the rest of us...

As someone who spent almost 3 year unemployed not that long ago through no fault of my own (made redundant and despite applying for at least 10 jobs a week took that long to get another job) I must say I feel this is a far to simplistic view. Yes there are spongers using the system but there are far more who would love to and just cant get a job (and yes I was prepapred to work for minimum wage but as soon as a employer saw my CV they would not even interview me as they knew even if they employed me as soon as I could find better I would leave). I would love to know how these people get £26000 a year as according to my calculations I recieved in total less than £6000 and also saw pretty much all my savings dissapear. For those advocating cutting people of after 12 months just pray it never happens to you as my chance of early retirement has gone up in smoke and I dread the thought of ever being made redundant again as I dont know how i would manage.

I could tell you ar more about how the system sucks (The back to work program is a joke for starters) but it woudl just be a waste of time as there are far to many business's making money out of it for it to change.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

Whatever system you have, there'll be winners and losers. I like the idea of national insurance, where you pay a premium each month to cover you in case of unemployment. If you never paid a premium, you shouldn't get the benefit. Then there would be some incentive for kids to do well at school to prepare themselves for a working life.

 

[flecc]

There's a BBC Radio 4 program currently available on the i-player which is related to this subject. Here's the link:

The Most Troubled Families in Britain

 

[Deleted member 4366]

There's a BBC Radio 4 program currently available on the i-player which is related to this subject. Here's the link:

The Most Troubled Families in Britain

I'll watch that one later Flecc. I've watched one or two episodes of Growing Up Poor and although poor, it seems that they can all afford tattoos and piercings as well as cigarettes. Nearly all the girls seem to end up pregnant.

 

[timidtom]

Let's remember that VAT is payable by all, regardless of income/ability to pay. Remember, as I mentioned before, that housing benefit goes to the landlord, who thus has no incentive to lower the price he asks. Note also - the Council Tax on No. 1 Hyde Park, (just sold for £1.3 million) is £1,300 p.a. - same as my semi.
Let's try again shall we? No taxation without representation and all taxes linked to ability to pay? Pretty please?
Tom (the timid one ...)

 

[Deleted member 4366]

Let's remember that VAT is payable by all, regardless of income/ability to pay. Remember, as I mentioned before, that housing benefit goes to the landlord, who thus has no incentive to lower the price he asks. Note also - the Council Tax on No. 1 Hyde Park, (just sold for £1.3 million) is £1,300 p.a. - same as my semi.
Let's try again shall we? No taxation without representation and all taxes linked to ability to pay? Pretty please?
Tom (the timid one ...)

I can see your point, but the way I see it is that some people pay VAT with money they earnt, others pay it with money that was taken from those that earnt it and given to them.

 

[Scimitar]

I believe that the only way to reverse this trend is to remove the vote from people who have never contributed. Why should they have a say in how tax money is spent when they never have or never will contribute?

I've seldom read a more unpleasant stream of thought outside of Mein Kampf. Well done - go and start your own little branch of the EDL.

 

[Jeremy]

It all comes down to getting a reasonable balance on the three main methods of taxation. Is it better to tax earnings, expenditure or assets?

I've not seen any country that gets the balance right, to the point where the population don't moan about it (except, perhaps, some of the Gulf states).

If you tax earnings you create problems with social security and the move from untaxed benefits to taxed earnings. If you tax expenditure then you risk suppressing cash flow by reducing purchasing, if you tax assets then there those who are relatively poor but have homes that have increased in value out of all proportion to their income might get penalised.

 

[flecc]

I've seldom read a more unpleasant stream of thought outside of Mein Kampf. Well done - go and start your own little branch of the EDL.

We don't allow the vote to convicted prisoners, clearly a policy that excludes them from suffrage due to anti-social behaviour. So it's more a matter of where do we draw the line, rather than one of extremism.

 

[JuicyBike]

If only the scapegoats weren't so featureless, this blame game would be a whole lot easier to play. As it is, just about anyone, black, white, ginger, blond, tall or short, fat or thin could become a scapegoat at the drop of a redundancy notice. Scary...

 

[Deleted member 4366]

It all comes down to getting a reasonable balance on the three main methods of taxation. Is it better to tax earnings, expenditure or assets?

I've not seen any country that gets the balance right, to the point where the population don't moan about it (except, perhaps, some of the Gulf states).

If you tax earnings you create problems with social security and the move from untaxed benefits to taxed earnings. If you tax expenditure then you risk suppressing cash flow by reducing purchasing, if you tax assets then there those who are relatively poor but have homes that have increased in value out of all proportion to their income might get penalised.

Personally, I don't care how they take it as long as it's spent wisely and they only take as much as is necessary, but, as far as I see, those in government seem to want to create thses huge projects, where nobody seems to care about how much is being spent, presumably so that they can all get a share of it without anybody noticing.