I thought that while everyone else was having a whinge about their ratings and the like, I'd have a bit of a go at the 'unpopular suggestions for a better world' thing. No doubt it will get slagged off by the majority, but Im pretty used to that by now.
I have done the minimal checking out of facts. Im just blithering away with some ideas that I came up with after getting viciously attacked for agreeing with some of what gbaji said about welfare/social security. I didn't bother explaining myself too much at the time, but I thought now would be a good time.
So, a few weeks ago I said that i felt that social security was a scheme, that tho it does have merit, (the idea does at least), in practice is more damaging to society than almost anything else i could think of.
My reasons for saying this are several. Firstly, because it is abused. We all know people who have spent years on the S.S., taking money out of the scheme, and ultimately giving bugger all back. Unless you count huge herds of snotty nosed lil kids, destined to grow up into the next generation of tossers whose main aim is to sit about drinking ****, and stealin car stereos, as 'giving something back'.
It gets to a point where the income from the S.S. for a family of layabouts gets large enuff to actually make 'working for a living' less profitable than 'signing on' and having your rent, child allowance and wotnot, paid for by other (working) people.
So, the end result of 'giving' money to people for nothing in return, is ultimately peretuating that system. The people who are getting the money, dont have any appreciation for it. Its never enuff, its 'my right', 'society owes it to me', blah blah. For it to be useful money it needs to be appreciated and valued. If its not valued, its not doing anyone any good.
Then of course, on the other side, is the tax payer, who works his/her chuff off, day in day out, to watch their hard earned cash disapear into the wide open gullet of the S.S. system, where it gets given out to the same people who sit around all day moaning about how crappy their lives are. And then coming round to your house to rip off your stereo to supplement their dole money.
So theres the problem as I see it.
Now my answer to this is this. And I would like at this point, to say that i am talking about the blaggers here. Im not condoning withdrawing support for the elderly, disabled etc. Im concerned about the able bodied, working age folk who cant be ***** to get up in the mornings and do something other than smoke **** and drink **** and breed and moan. Clear? Right.
First, you add up all the money in that is being spent on welfare payments in your country in 1 year. Not disability, or pensions, or the like. I mean the housing, kids clothes, cash payments (dole) all that sort of thing. Its a massive amount of money. HUGE. Presently its handed out to the least productive people, and taken out of the pockets of the most productive, making the payers resentful of the takers, and the takers 'dependant on the givers, wich makes them resentful of their dependancy. result? loads of resentment all round and a gigantic, and expensive system to administer the whole thing.
Once you've got you pile of cash. You then add up all the people in your society over the age of say.....20. then you divide that pile of money into an equal share for every single one of them. Then every week, you pay every person a 'share of the pot of money. That would mean that every person who qualifies, gets an equal share. if you are a company director, you get your share, if you are a surfer who wants to live on a beach with 3 of your mates for the summer sharing your money to rent a shack, you get your share. If you are wanting to spend your life watching tv on your couch you get your share. No more no less.
Then, you will have these benefits.
The lazy git can continue being a lazy git. He/she has got their money. thats all they get, no more.
The person who works, but doesnt want work 40 hours a week, can afford to work less. Leading to more leisure time for them, and more opportunity for more part time work for others.
The artist/stroke/musician and his mates can pool their money and get creative without the stigma of 'being on the dole'.
The person who has never worked, but would like to, can do a few days here and there without fear of losing their payment.
Mr middle class gets a little extra every week, leading to a day off once in a while to spend with his family.
And mister 'stinking rich' can stop moaning about his taxes going to bludgers and scroungers cos he's getting his share too.
And maybe a by-product would be a smaller govt. dept to sort it all out cos its a simpler system than trying to pay differing amounts to everyone.
The problems as I see it, would be the transition between the present system, and the new one. The reality is there are families that already have 5 kids and a fridge full of beer. this transition would take some years, and would be complicated, but would eventually dwindle as people realised that their lives are now theirs to manage. Not someone elses. And eventually you would have a system that everyone benefitted from equally and there would be less cause for jealousy and resentment.
So thats my plan. I eagerly await my nomination for Nobel prize for Services to humanity. I thankyou.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Another vote loser.
Another vote loser.Follow
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Although The Social Security Administration wants nothing less than to violate values so important to our sense of community, I want this post to speak a language of reconciliation, not retaliation. In the text that follows, I won't bother discussing the flaws in its logic, because it definitely doesn't use any logic. Obscurantism can be deadly, but The Social Security Administration's subliminal psywar campaigns are much worse.
If The Social Security Administration could have one wish, it'd wish for the ability to allow federally funded research to mushroom into a narrow-minded, grossly inefficient system, hampered by oppressive, soporific exhibitionists and the most hidebound dossers I've ever seen. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that mendacious, prodigal sciolists like The Social Security Administration are not born -- they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, after hearing about The Social Security Administration's choleric attempts to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up, I was saddened. I was saddened that it has lowered itself to this level. When I say that The Social Security Administration's language is turgid and incomprehensible, I consider this to mean that The Social Security Administration can't possibly believe that its rantings are Holy Writ. It's malicious, but it's not that malicious. Now, why all this fuss about a few wicked declamations? Simply put, it's because The Social Security Administration claims that the media should "create" news rather than report it. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in its antics. Then again, The Social Security Administration never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. It presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, it seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that when I was a child, my clergyman told me, "The Social Security Administration is a wee bit overzealous in its defense of antagonism." If you think about it you'll see his point. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for The Social Security Administration to descend to character assassination and name calling. You shouldn't let The Social Security Administration intimidate you. You shouldn't let it push you around. We're the ones who are right, not The Social Security Administration.
Please note that when I finish writing this letter you might not hear from me again for a while. I simply don't have enough strength left to straighten out The Social Security Administration's thinking. Nevertheless, what The Social Security Administration is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly pouty activity.
It's fine to realize that The Social Security Administration has a deep conviction that it can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion, but it's more important to know that it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about it and about hypothetical solutions to our The Social Security Administration problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that if we don't remove the The Social Security Administration threat now, it will bite us in our backside in the coming days. It is immature and stupid of The Social Security Administration to quote me out of context. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to restore the world back to its original balance, and that's why I say that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to serve on the side of Truth. Don't get me wrong; we must give the needy a helping hand, as opposed to an elbow in the face, in such as way that there is nothing The Social Security Administration can do about it except learn to live with the fait accompli. But I must ask that The Social Security Administration's trained seals deal stiffly with the most pretentious cutthroats you'll ever see who do everything possible to keep nasty tossers jealous and discourteous. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to blame those who have no power to change the current direction of events.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if The Social Security Administration had learned anything from history, it'd know that it seizes every opportunity to reward those who knowingly or unknowingly play along with its slogans while punishing those who oppose them. I cannot believe this colossal clownishness. Any sane person knows that I should note that The Social Security Administration keeps insisting that the purpose of life is self-gratification. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that if my memory serves me correctly, The Social Security Administration either is or elects to be ignorant of scientific principles and methods. It even intentionally misuses scientific terminology to delegitimize our belief systems and replace them with a counter-hegemony that seeks to teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate. Every time The Social Security Administration utters or writes a statement that supports collectivism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that science is merely a tool invented by the current elite to maintain power. I aver we mustn't let it make such statements, partly because we should act and act fast, but primarily because the problem with it is not that it's unpleasant. It's that it wants to place spleeny anarchists at the top of the social hierarchy. I feel that The Social Security Administration has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. It obviously has none, or it wouldn't make a big deal out of nothing. If I had to choose the most impudent specimen from The Social Security Administration's welter of domineering gabble, it would have to be The Social Security Administration's claim that militarism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. This is not to say that people should just treat each other with decency and respect. It is merely to point out that we mustn't let The Social Security Administration supplant national heroes with gin-swilling ranters. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy.
I'm sorry if I've gotten a little off track here, but The Social Security Administration always demands instant gratification. That's all that is of concern to it; nothing else matters -- except maybe to compose paeans to blackguardism. I tell you this because The Social Security Administration has written volumes about how divine ichor flows through its veins. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that scrutinizing its practices may be instructive in this regard. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. It is hard to decide what is stronger in The Social Security Administration: its incredible stupidity as far as any real knowledge or ability is concerned, or the pea-brained insolence of its behavior. Doesn't The Social Security Administration ever get tired of calling everyone a querulous boeotian? There are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and The Social Security Administration announcing some pestilential thing every few weeks.
Certain facts are clear. For instance, The Social Security Administration has announced its intentions to make serious dialogue difficult or impossible. While doing so may earn The Social Security Administration a gold star from the mush-for-brains terrorism crowd, were he alive today, Hideki Tojo would be its most trustworthy ally. I can see Tojo joining forces with The Social Security Administration to help it seize control of the power structure. To level filth and slime at everyone opposed to The Social Security Administration's asseverations is The Social Security Administration's objective, and impulsive, hypocritical corporatism is its method. The Social Security Administration is trying to prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence. Their mission? To make life less pleasant for us. You are, I'm sure, well aware that there is little question that The Social Security Administration's promise of equality is a false one. But did you know that The Social Security Administration spews out its vituperative slander from a safe, no-risk forum?
If The Social Security Administration succeeds in its attempt to turn peaceful gatherings into embarrassing scandals, it'll have to be over my dead body. The Social Security Administration's vicegerents believe that The Social Security Administration can achieve its goals by friendly and moral conduct. It should not be surprising that they believe this, however. As we all know, minds that have been so maimed that they believe that embracing a system of cronyism will make everything right with the world can believe anything, especially if it's false.
Even The Social Security Administration's cheerleaders couldn't deal with the full impact of The Social Security Administration's actions. That's why they created "The Social Security Administration-ism," which is just a deluded excuse to make bigotry respectable. The Social Security Administration thinks that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to its demands. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so.
The entire premise of The Social Security Administration's apologues is incredibly offensive to any self-respecting person. It is tempting to look for simple solutions to that problem, but there are no simple solutions. Even by The Social Security Administration's own account, I've tried explaining to its lickspittles that its desire to enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of its hangers-on to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant is incontrovertible evidence that The Social Security Administration harbors some nefarious grudges. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that many people have witnessed The Social Security Administration reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals. The Social Security Administration generally insists that its witnesses are mistaken and blames its fatuitous press releases on ostentatious, unbridled spongers. It's like it has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What's more, The Social Security Administration should think about how its politics lead tyrannical, intrusive hatemongers to devise devious scams to get money for nothing. If The Social Security Administration doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps it should just keep quiet. That doesn't necessarily mean that attempts to deflect attention from The Social Security Administration's unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen are a de facto, if not a de jure, example of hopeless totalitarianism, although it might. Rather, it means that I have reason to believe that The Social Security Administration is about to hijack the word "anthropomorphotheist" and use it to instill distrust and thereby create a need for its avaricious views. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that The Social Security Administration says that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. That is the most despicable lie I have ever heard in my entire life. At one point, I actually believed that The Social Security Administration would stop being so obtuse. Silly me. Anyway, I hope I've made my point, which is that it is no accident that The Social Security Administration makes it its job to peddle the snake oil of bad-tempered, neo-lackluster chauvinism.
If The Social Security Administration could have one wish, it'd wish for the ability to allow federally funded research to mushroom into a narrow-minded, grossly inefficient system, hampered by oppressive, soporific exhibitionists and the most hidebound dossers I've ever seen. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that mendacious, prodigal sciolists like The Social Security Administration are not born -- they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, after hearing about The Social Security Administration's choleric attempts to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up, I was saddened. I was saddened that it has lowered itself to this level. When I say that The Social Security Administration's language is turgid and incomprehensible, I consider this to mean that The Social Security Administration can't possibly believe that its rantings are Holy Writ. It's malicious, but it's not that malicious. Now, why all this fuss about a few wicked declamations? Simply put, it's because The Social Security Administration claims that the media should "create" news rather than report it. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in its antics. Then again, The Social Security Administration never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. It presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, it seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that when I was a child, my clergyman told me, "The Social Security Administration is a wee bit overzealous in its defense of antagonism." If you think about it you'll see his point. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for The Social Security Administration to descend to character assassination and name calling. You shouldn't let The Social Security Administration intimidate you. You shouldn't let it push you around. We're the ones who are right, not The Social Security Administration.
Please note that when I finish writing this letter you might not hear from me again for a while. I simply don't have enough strength left to straighten out The Social Security Administration's thinking. Nevertheless, what The Social Security Administration is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly pouty activity.
It's fine to realize that The Social Security Administration has a deep conviction that it can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion, but it's more important to know that it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about it and about hypothetical solutions to our The Social Security Administration problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that if we don't remove the The Social Security Administration threat now, it will bite us in our backside in the coming days. It is immature and stupid of The Social Security Administration to quote me out of context. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to restore the world back to its original balance, and that's why I say that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to serve on the side of Truth. Don't get me wrong; we must give the needy a helping hand, as opposed to an elbow in the face, in such as way that there is nothing The Social Security Administration can do about it except learn to live with the fait accompli. But I must ask that The Social Security Administration's trained seals deal stiffly with the most pretentious cutthroats you'll ever see who do everything possible to keep nasty tossers jealous and discourteous. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to blame those who have no power to change the current direction of events.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if The Social Security Administration had learned anything from history, it'd know that it seizes every opportunity to reward those who knowingly or unknowingly play along with its slogans while punishing those who oppose them. I cannot believe this colossal clownishness. Any sane person knows that I should note that The Social Security Administration keeps insisting that the purpose of life is self-gratification. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that if my memory serves me correctly, The Social Security Administration either is or elects to be ignorant of scientific principles and methods. It even intentionally misuses scientific terminology to delegitimize our belief systems and replace them with a counter-hegemony that seeks to teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate. Every time The Social Security Administration utters or writes a statement that supports collectivism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that science is merely a tool invented by the current elite to maintain power. I aver we mustn't let it make such statements, partly because we should act and act fast, but primarily because the problem with it is not that it's unpleasant. It's that it wants to place spleeny anarchists at the top of the social hierarchy. I feel that The Social Security Administration has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. It obviously has none, or it wouldn't make a big deal out of nothing. If I had to choose the most impudent specimen from The Social Security Administration's welter of domineering gabble, it would have to be The Social Security Administration's claim that militarism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. This is not to say that people should just treat each other with decency and respect. It is merely to point out that we mustn't let The Social Security Administration supplant national heroes with gin-swilling ranters. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy.
I'm sorry if I've gotten a little off track here, but The Social Security Administration always demands instant gratification. That's all that is of concern to it; nothing else matters -- except maybe to compose paeans to blackguardism. I tell you this because The Social Security Administration has written volumes about how divine ichor flows through its veins. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that scrutinizing its practices may be instructive in this regard. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. It is hard to decide what is stronger in The Social Security Administration: its incredible stupidity as far as any real knowledge or ability is concerned, or the pea-brained insolence of its behavior. Doesn't The Social Security Administration ever get tired of calling everyone a querulous boeotian? There are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and The Social Security Administration announcing some pestilential thing every few weeks.
Certain facts are clear. For instance, The Social Security Administration has announced its intentions to make serious dialogue difficult or impossible. While doing so may earn The Social Security Administration a gold star from the mush-for-brains terrorism crowd, were he alive today, Hideki Tojo would be its most trustworthy ally. I can see Tojo joining forces with The Social Security Administration to help it seize control of the power structure. To level filth and slime at everyone opposed to The Social Security Administration's asseverations is The Social Security Administration's objective, and impulsive, hypocritical corporatism is its method. The Social Security Administration is trying to prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence. Their mission? To make life less pleasant for us. You are, I'm sure, well aware that there is little question that The Social Security Administration's promise of equality is a false one. But did you know that The Social Security Administration spews out its vituperative slander from a safe, no-risk forum?
If The Social Security Administration succeeds in its attempt to turn peaceful gatherings into embarrassing scandals, it'll have to be over my dead body. The Social Security Administration's vicegerents believe that The Social Security Administration can achieve its goals by friendly and moral conduct. It should not be surprising that they believe this, however. As we all know, minds that have been so maimed that they believe that embracing a system of cronyism will make everything right with the world can believe anything, especially if it's false.
Even The Social Security Administration's cheerleaders couldn't deal with the full impact of The Social Security Administration's actions. That's why they created "The Social Security Administration-ism," which is just a deluded excuse to make bigotry respectable. The Social Security Administration thinks that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to its demands. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so.
The entire premise of The Social Security Administration's apologues is incredibly offensive to any self-respecting person. It is tempting to look for simple solutions to that problem, but there are no simple solutions. Even by The Social Security Administration's own account, I've tried explaining to its lickspittles that its desire to enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of its hangers-on to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant is incontrovertible evidence that The Social Security Administration harbors some nefarious grudges. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that many people have witnessed The Social Security Administration reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals. The Social Security Administration generally insists that its witnesses are mistaken and blames its fatuitous press releases on ostentatious, unbridled spongers. It's like it has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What's more, The Social Security Administration should think about how its politics lead tyrannical, intrusive hatemongers to devise devious scams to get money for nothing. If The Social Security Administration doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps it should just keep quiet. That doesn't necessarily mean that attempts to deflect attention from The Social Security Administration's unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen are a de facto, if not a de jure, example of hopeless totalitarianism, although it might. Rather, it means that I have reason to believe that The Social Security Administration is about to hijack the word "anthropomorphotheist" and use it to instill distrust and thereby create a need for its avaricious views. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that The Social Security Administration says that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. That is the most despicable lie I have ever heard in my entire life. At one point, I actually believed that The Social Security Administration would stop being so obtuse. Silly me. Anyway, I hope I've made my point, which is that it is no accident that The Social Security Administration makes it its job to peddle the snake oil of bad-tempered, neo-lackluster chauvinism.
I was going to give an honest go of it. Then I saw who the poster was, read the first two paragraphs, got as far as understanding you agreed with Gbaji on SS weeks/months ago and you got ripped, and it took you this long to come up with a response.
I've got better ways to spend 10 minutes. In fact, I feel a way coming on now. I hope there is fresh toilet paper in the stall, I hate it when someone uses the last of it and doesn't bother replacing it.
I've got better ways to spend 10 minutes. In fact, I feel a way coming on now. I hope there is fresh toilet paper in the stall, I hate it when someone uses the last of it and doesn't bother replacing it.
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
Quote:
Once you've got you pile of cash. You then add up all the people in your society over the age of say.....20. then you divide that pile of money into an equal share for every single one of them. Then every week, you pay every person a 'share of the pot of money. That would mean that every person who qualifies, gets an equal share. if you are a company director, you get your share, if you are a surfer who wants to live on a beach with 3 of your mates for the summer sharing your money to rent a shack, you get your share. If you are wanting to spend your life watching tv on your couch you get your share. No more no less.
Last year i payed out 30% of my wage in Income Tax and national insurance.
9% of my remain wage on Council Tax.
17.5% on most of my goods in Value added Tax.
for this i get, well nothing...
I don't use state healthcare
I don't get Income support
I don't get a state pension
I use non state owned "Public transport"
I am entitled to no state allowances
I am intitled to no state grants
I am being taken to the cleaners.
When did Jawbox become Gbaji 
Quote:
My reasons for saying this are several. Firstly, because it is abused. We all know people who have spent years on the S.S., taking money out of the scheme, and ultimately giving bugger all back. Unless you count huge herds of snotty nosed lil kids, destined to grow up into the next generation of tossers whose main aim is to sit about drinking ****, and stealin car stereos, as 'giving something back'.
It gets to a point where the income from the S.S. for a family of layabouts gets large enuff to actually make 'working for a living' less profitable than 'signing on' and having your rent, child allowance and wotnot, paid for by other (working) people.
It gets to a point where the income from the S.S. for a family of layabouts gets large enuff to actually make 'working for a living' less profitable than 'signing on' and having your rent, child allowance and wotnot, paid for by other (working) people.
You mean disability insurance or Supplemental Security Income not Social Security. Social Security is generally understood to be the retirement plan.
The people who are getting "filthy rich" are the ones committing fraud. Years ago we had tenants we had to evict for non-payment. After they skipped out on the last months rent, I was contacted by an investigator for GMAC. Found out that while they were a married couple, they each had 5 Social Security numbers and were each collecting 5 disability checks for a single parent with 3 kids. The biggest problem the disability system has is almost no enforcement/fraud investigation. We could save millions if we spent more on enforcement and nailed the people cheating the system.
I say we let people like this continue to live off the state...in prison.
Quote:
When did Jawbox become Gbaji
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
You mean disability insurance or Supplemental Security Income not Social Security. Social Security is generally understood to be the retirement plan.
we dont all live in America dontcha know....
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Last year i payed out 30% of my wage in Income Tax and national insurance.
9% of my remain wage on Council Tax.
17.5% on most of my goods in Value added Tax.
for this i get, well nothing...
Right. You don't drive on public roads, didn't attend public schools, wouldn't avail yourself of police or fire services or emts, if there was a military conflict, your private army would move in and protect your intrests. You ran your own electricity grid, dug your own well and sewer system, supply your own fuel, inspect all of your own food, test any and all drugs you take personally, etc.
Good going, you don't need to pay taxes anymore.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
We could save millions if we spent more on enforcement and nailed the people cheating the system.
Costs more than it would save, not close. Those dirty cheaters would get caught, though, so you'd feel better. There's that, I suppose.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
I thought we buried this arguement weeks ago.
Simply you are taking a whole segment of society and then seeing the worst in it and tar the rest with that brush.
I think you should look at Sweden's model, which the social system is designed to provide training and education, not just money for nothing. But then though they pay the world's highest tax rate, they have the best public facilities I have ever seen.
People who want to rort the system will always be there and you can't do a thing about it, cause if would take much more money to catch the crook than you would save after they were in jail.
Simply you are taking a whole segment of society and then seeing the worst in it and tar the rest with that brush.
I think you should look at Sweden's model, which the social system is designed to provide training and education, not just money for nothing. But then though they pay the world's highest tax rate, they have the best public facilities I have ever seen.
People who want to rort the system will always be there and you can't do a thing about it, cause if would take much more money to catch the crook than you would save after they were in jail.
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
You mean disability insurance or Supplemental Security Income not Social Security. Social Security is generally understood to be the retirement plan.
we dont all live in America dontcha know....
Yeah. I think a few folks didn't catch that though. The term "social security" in the US refers specifically to what you'd call the "pension plan". Anyone not aware that you were from the UK (or didn't catch from context that you were clearly talking about a lot more then pension) would be confused.
And Smash? I think the point wasn't that he got "nothing for his taxes", but that a good portion of his taxes is going into things that he doesn't gain any benefit from. If you're talking about roads and police and fire services, most people consider those legitimate uses of tax dollars and are more then willing to pay taxes for them. It's when you get into providing direct services to the population out of government funds not because they're needed for social infrastructure, but more "because we can", you start getting opposition to the expenses.
Yeah. I know. I'm cruel and hearless. But there's never an end to the things that the government *could* do for its citizens. And you'll bankrupt yourself before you ever "finish". You have to draw a line somewhere.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
BBBD wrote:
I think you should look at Sweden's model, which the social system is designed to provide training and education, not just money for nothing. But then though they pay the world's highest tax rate, they have the best public facilities I have ever seen.
Well. Sweden has something like an 80% tax rate. A relatively low GDP growth rate (although not as terrible as other European nations). A not terrible unemployment rate. They're much better off then most European socialisms, which is something.
Of course, they've got about half-again more relative public debt then the US has. So if you think debt is "bad", it's not like they've avoided it. They're extremely vulnerable to global economic trends, since their tax rate essentially puts them at the "treading water with only 6 inches of clearance" level. A downturn in global economics requires an increase in national debt to cover it. They just don't have enough give in the private sector to make up for it.
They're also a pretty small nation with a lot of control over imports, exports, and immigration. It's much easier to make socialism work when you can exert a great deal of control over those things.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
But their women are hawt!!
I understand, but they have made a decision to make their country as fair and equitible as possible. GDP sucks, I like Bhutan GNH (Gross National Happiness)!
I understand, but they have made a decision to make their country as fair and equitible as possible. GDP sucks, I like Bhutan GNH (Gross National Happiness)!
Quote:
Right. You don't drive on public roads, Road repairs are paid for by Car tax, I pay for that via increased bus ticket prices.
didn't attend public schools No I didn't,
wouldn't avail yourself of police Never have
or fire services Ditto
or emts, if there was a military conflict, your private army would move in and protect your intrests I'm in the military i protect my OWN interests..
You ran your own electricity grid Private company that charges me for the privillage,
dug your own well and sewer system Private company that charges me again.,
supply your own fuel see last two comments,
inspect all of your own food Yet again private companies that charge food suppliers, who charge Supermarkets, who charge me.,
test any and all drugs you take personally That would be none then unless you are talking about the private companies that charge the drug companies to test thier non pescription drugs. , etc.
didn't attend public schools No I didn't,
wouldn't avail yourself of police Never have
or fire services Ditto
or emts, if there was a military conflict, your private army would move in and protect your intrests I'm in the military i protect my OWN interests..
You ran your own electricity grid Private company that charges me for the privillage,
dug your own well and sewer system Private company that charges me again.,
supply your own fuel see last two comments,
inspect all of your own food Yet again private companies that charge food suppliers, who charge Supermarkets, who charge me.,
test any and all drugs you take personally That would be none then unless you are talking about the private companies that charge the drug companies to test thier non pescription drugs. , etc.
Edited, Aug 16th 2006 at 1:42am EDT by tarv
Tarv you should get dual citizenship and come join the Australian navy, pay is tax free
Quote:
Sweden has something like an 80% tax rate
Hahahahahahahahaha... *breathe* Hahahahahahahahahahaha...
No, Sweden have in fact ONE BILLION% tax rate!!
Oh gbaji, stop it, you're killing me.
Seriously, I don't get it. Do you think people are too lazy to check your "facts"? Too ignorant tor ealise they're completely ridiculous? Hmmm, I really don't know how you get away with this.
Anyway. Linky about taxes in Sweden.
And some snippets:
- Sweden has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe – 28 percent.
- Employers contribute about 33 percent of payrolls in social security contributions. These contributions are deductible from taxable corporate income.
- Individual earned income is taxed mainly by municipality of residence, at rates ranging from 29 to 34 percent.
Just admit it. You have no clue about European economies. It's ok, nothing to be ashamed of, you're not the only one. But please stop pretending. It's getting embarassing.
As for this particular topic, I think it's very country-specific. It really depends on where you live.
In France, home of the brave commies and free surrenderers, it's quite crazy. When you lose your job, you're entitled to 80% of your previous salary for 6 months, if you are "looking for a job" (ie, signing in once a month). Then it goes to 40% after 6 months. It's nuts.
And easily abused: I have a friend who was a banker in London, paid £70,000/year. He moved to Paris cos he was sick of London, and tried to sign-up for benefits. They told him that due to "abuse", he had to find a job in France before he could eligible forbenefits. So, he applied for a crappy telemarketing position, and resigned after one morning. And got paid 80% of £70,000 for six months.
Cushy.
In the UK, however, it's not like that. You get £45/week in benefits. That is *nothing* when you live in London. Ok, you might get a ****** council flat in some run-down estate in the worst part of London, if you've got a kid. And get a bit of money for that too. But not much. Any less, and we're back to Victorian levels of poverty.
I'm not sure "equal redistribution" will achieve much. The average amount redistributed will not mean much to people who work (they dont need it ), and will not help those that do need it.
I'm sure there are better ways to deal with benefit fraud than simply scrapping wealth redistribution.
In France, home of the brave commies and free surrenderers, it's quite crazy. When you lose your job, you're entitled to 80% of your previous salary for 6 months, if you are "looking for a job" (ie, signing in once a month). Then it goes to 40% after 6 months. It's nuts.
And easily abused: I have a friend who was a banker in London, paid £70,000/year. He moved to Paris cos he was sick of London, and tried to sign-up for benefits. They told him that due to "abuse", he had to find a job in France before he could eligible forbenefits. So, he applied for a crappy telemarketing position, and resigned after one morning. And got paid 80% of £70,000 for six months.
Cushy.
In the UK, however, it's not like that. You get £45/week in benefits. That is *nothing* when you live in London. Ok, you might get a ****** council flat in some run-down estate in the worst part of London, if you've got a kid. And get a bit of money for that too. But not much. Any less, and we're back to Victorian levels of poverty.
I'm not sure "equal redistribution" will achieve much. The average amount redistributed will not mean much to people who work (they dont need it ), and will not help those that do need it.
I'm sure there are better ways to deal with benefit fraud than simply scrapping wealth redistribution.
Quote:
hahahahahahahaha... *breathe* Hahahahahahahahahahaha...
No, Sweden have in fact ONE BILLION% tax rate!!
Oh gbaji, stop it, you're killing me.
Seriously, I don't get it. Do you think people are too lazy to check your "facts"? Too ignorant tor ealise they're completely ridiculous? Hmmm, I really don't know how you get away with this.
Anyway. Linky about taxes in Sweden.
And some snippets:
- Sweden has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe – 28 percent.
- Employers contribute about 33 percent of payrolls in social security contributions. These contributions are deductible from taxable corporate income.
- Individual earned income is taxed mainly by municipality of residence, at rates ranging from 29 to 34 percent.
Just admit it. You have no clue about European economies. It's ok, nothing to be ashamed of, you're not the only one. But please stop pretending. It's getting embarassing.
No, Sweden have in fact ONE BILLION% tax rate!!
Oh gbaji, stop it, you're killing me.
Seriously, I don't get it. Do you think people are too lazy to check your "facts"? Too ignorant tor ealise they're completely ridiculous? Hmmm, I really don't know how you get away with this.
Anyway. Linky about taxes in Sweden.
And some snippets:
- Sweden has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe – 28 percent.
- Employers contribute about 33 percent of payrolls in social security contributions. These contributions are deductible from taxable corporate income.
- Individual earned income is taxed mainly by municipality of residence, at rates ranging from 29 to 34 percent.
Just admit it. You have no clue about European economies. It's ok, nothing to be ashamed of, you're not the only one. But please stop pretending. It's getting embarassing.
Actually GBAji might be closer to the truth than you, Sweden is one of the few European nations to have both VAT and Personal Income tax. You pay 25% vat on everthing on top of the 29-33% income tax, and if you make over about 37K american add an extra 20% income tax, and another 5% if you make over 60K. So if you make say $39,795 which is the average American salary you would pay 53% in income tax plus a 25% VAt on all purchases, that adds up to 78% of your income going to the government, and that is not including the 33% employers pay in a pre-salary tax.
Edited, Aug 16th 2006 at 8:53am EDT by fhrugby
Quote:
So if you make say $39,795 which is the average American salary you would pay 53% in income tax plus a 25% VAt on all purchases, that adds up to 78% of your income going to the government
No, it doesn't. Not even close.
For the top bracket earners, yes the rate is around 50% if you add the local tax and the income tax.
But you can't add the VAT as though it were another income tax. VAT, as opposed to income tax, is not based on your earning, but on the product's value. So you can't just add the VAT tax rate as though it were an income tax rate.
In other words, the 25% VAT is not 25% of your income. It's 25% of the product's price. It doesn't make any sense to add it your general tax rate, since it is not a percentage of your income. In fact, relatively, the more you earn, the less VAT is as a % of your income, since it is "fixed" and not income-based.
And then there are many exceptions:
VAT is only 12% for all goods and services related to food, tourism, hotels, passenger transport. And only 6% for all goods and services related to culture, newspapers, magazines, cinemas, sports.
Having said all that, Sweden is still one the most heavily taxed countries in Europe, but it hovers around 50% for the top-earners.
red wrote:
fhrugby wrote:
So if you make say $39,795 which is the average American salary you would pay 53% in income tax plus a 25% VAt on all purchases, that adds up to 78% of your income going to the government
No, it doesn't. Not even close.
For the top bracket earners, yes the rate is around 50% if you add the local tax and the income tax.
But you can't add the VAT as though it were another income tax. VAT, as opposed to income tax, is not based on your earning, but on the product's value. So you can't just add the VAT tax rate as though it were an income tax rate.
In other words, the 25% VAT is not 25% of your income. It's 25% of the product's price. It doesn't make any sense to add it your general tax rate, since it is not a percentage of your income. In fact, relatively, the more you earn, the less VAT is as a % of your income, since it is "fixed" and not income-based.
And then there are many exceptions:
VAT is only 12% for all goods and services related to food, tourism, hotels, passenger transport. And only 6% for all goods and services related to culture, newspapers, magazines, cinemas, sports.
Having said all that, Sweden is still one the most heavily taxed countries in Europe, but it hovers around 50% for the top-earners.
My only point was that a Gbjai was not unreasonable to state that Sweden had a "Like 80%" tax rate and showed how the numbers "could" add up to close to that. I did not want to get into the detailed math and the VAT exceptions, ect.
In contemplating the tax impact of moving to sweden I certainly would consider the VAT on all purchases in considering the tax implications. In fact if you do preliminary detailed math the 25% tax added to goods amount to a 20% loss of any income spent, and if like me you are not wealthy you spend 100% of your income. The exceptions seemed to be limited to food, lesser purchases or tourist consumerism. I could find out what % each is of an average persons expenses and adjust that 20% number accordingly, but I have better things to do, so I will just use 19%. If I add the 19% to the 53% tax, that is 72% which most people would consider close to the 78% rough estimate I stated. And in no way or form "not even close" as you stated.
Another thing to note, in your first response to Gbjai you imply he is way off and Sweden has low taxes, and then you admit in your response to me that they are among the most heavily taxed. I think you were just looking to find something to beat up Gbjai over, but this is The Asylum you do not need a reason.
Edited, Aug 16th 2006 at 12:12pm EDT by fhrugby
My only point was that a Gbjai was not unreasonable to state that Sweden had a "Like 80%" tax rate and showed how the numbers "could" add up to close to that. I did not want to get into the detailed math and the VAT exceptions, ect.
Perposterous.
Unreasonable and nothing approcahing correct.
Perposterous.
Unreasonable and nothing approcahing correct.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
I see what you meant. But you cant just add up those numbers since they dont refer to the same %. One is income, the other the price of things.
Second I'd need an explanation of how 25% VAT amounts to a 20% tax on income. I didn't understand it. And food is big part of any person's monthly spending.
Also, that 50% rate is for the top-earners. If you're not a top-earner you'll pay aound 40%. But the schools, hospitals, doctors, unversities, etc... are free. And you've got good benefits if you get seriously ill, become unemployed, etc...
Having said all that, I don't really care about Sweden's tax system as such.
Thanks :)
But it wasn't to "beat up" gbaji. It's just that he makes Sweden sound like an eastern european country in the Soviet era. Which is complete non-sense. i wish he would go and live in those places for a fwe months, just to see how eerily similar it is to the US. How people don't get clothes bought for them by the government. How they dont get taxed 80%.
Just think about it. We have the EU, so businesses/people can move freely anywhere within it. Some countries, like the Baltic countries, have a flat-tax of around 15%. If Swedish people were really taxed 80% of their income, they would've all migrated a long time ago.
Second I'd need an explanation of how 25% VAT amounts to a 20% tax on income. I didn't understand it. And food is big part of any person's monthly spending.
Also, that 50% rate is for the top-earners. If you're not a top-earner you'll pay aound 40%. But the schools, hospitals, doctors, unversities, etc... are free. And you've got good benefits if you get seriously ill, become unemployed, etc...
Having said all that, I don't really care about Sweden's tax system as such.
Quote:
I think you were just looking to find something to beat up Gbjai over, but this is The Asylum you do not need a reason.
Thanks :)
But it wasn't to "beat up" gbaji. It's just that he makes Sweden sound like an eastern european country in the Soviet era. Which is complete non-sense. i wish he would go and live in those places for a fwe months, just to see how eerily similar it is to the US. How people don't get clothes bought for them by the government. How they dont get taxed 80%.
Just think about it. We have the EU, so businesses/people can move freely anywhere within it. Some countries, like the Baltic countries, have a flat-tax of around 15%. If Swedish people were really taxed 80% of their income, they would've all migrated a long time ago.
fhrugby the Sly wrote:
I think you were just looking to find something to beat up Gbjai over, but this is The Asylum you do not need a reason.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
In case anyone wanted the numbers Sweden Taxes
Quote:
Second I'd need an explanation of how 25% VAT amounts to a 20% tax on income. I didn't understand it.
If a widget costs 100 Krona and the VAT is 25%, the amount of the VAT is 25 Krona bringing the total cost to 125 Krona. If you divide the 25 Krona VAT by the 125 Krona total cost you get 20%. Which is the % of your total expenditure which goes to the VAT. That is where I got that number.Then assuming you spend all your income, then 20% of it goes to the VAT. Even if you save some income for later, when you do spend that, it will still be subject to the VAT.
Quote:
If Swedish people were really taxed 80% of their income, they would've all migrated a long time ago.
What With the hot swedish women and the socialized welfare system? I understand your defense of the Swedes, they are nice people, especially the nordic women, and it has a great standard of living, low crime, (they just give money away, why steal) low cost medical and other services, very liberal welfare system and they do not have the worst economy in Europe; all of which seperates them from the Eastern European countries. They just have a socialist government with large welfare rolls and socialized services and therefore a high Tax Rate to support them.
Even if you discount the VAT, which I would not, the hidden 32% tax paid on all salaries by the employer has to be taken into account by the employer when determining your salary and therefore you take home less money because of it, when added to the 53% income tax on the average person, goes well above 80%.
In comparison, I do not think you realize how much of our income in the US goes to taxes. You pay 33% in income tax, then 5% in FICA, 1.5% in medicare, then the hidden 8% payroll tax. Then there is sales tax, even if it is 6 % sales tax, It can add up to more than 50%. And the sales tax like the VAt has a compounding effect. Think about buying a peice of furniture for example: You are paying the sales tax when you buy it, paying for the sales tax the builder paid on all the materila and tools. The sales tax on the material manufacturer paid on his material and tools, etc.
And while the swedish tax rate on food is only 12%, the tax rate on Alcohol is near 90% and on Gasoline even higher.
Edited, Aug 16th 2006 at 3:05pm EDT by fhrugby
Recent Visitors: 409
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (409)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Another vote loser.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC