Tuna Sandwich Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 That argument is like saying 'how do you want to die - painfully or horribly?' There are other, and better, ways of doing government. Vote Albert! Quick, their is still time for you to be a candidate. I will vote for you!!! "painfully or horribly" is a good way of putting it. I am not a staunch Tory supporter. At the moment they are not offering a viable alternative (or anything really!), but when it comes to labour a leopard cannot change it's spots. They have managed to disguise them well so far, but when Tony leaves and Brown takes over the rot will set in, and make my words, they will not be returned to office! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuna Sandwich Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 pay massive taxes every year, a large proportion of which goes into a pot to pay for schooling other people's children, to support their tax relief, to subsidise council housing, etc. I could grumble about this but I don't. However, when people start making socialist remarks, wanting me to pay more to subsidise them that really annoys me. From the above, it appears you live in the UK (massive taxes, council houses) and not IOM...so why do you care? I also tend to agree with Lonewolf, children should be seen as a social responsibility and not just those of the parents who have chosen, or in some cases not chosen to have kids. I dont hear anyone moaning about kids getting grants to go to Uni because their parents can not afford it or free school dinners for kid's whose parents are on benefits. Most people these days dont have kids because they are too selfish and would rather have all their money and time for themselves. Also, I dont understand how giving a tax break to people who pay £1,000's a year on childcare will increase the amount of tax for everyone else? Being a parent is one of the toughest jobs in the world and being a parent/s on a low income just makes it even harder. Yes, I live on the IOM and pay massive taxes. You dress up state homes however you want they are still council houses. As I said in my original post kids are a social responsibility, and I don't grumble. However, for every tax break, that money has to be made up somewhere, and that will be by taxing someone else. Why should I be taxed more so that someone can buy a house they cannot afford? With regard to most people who don't have kids being selfish, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 With regard to most people who don't have kids being selfish, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE!!! or a victim of circumstances or nature ? (yes I know you put in 'most' but how much does 'not most' cover ?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I would imagine the number of female defaulters was a lower percentage then their male equivalent. Women in general tend to have more social conscience. Unless you can back up your assertion with some evidence, I think it's pretty safe to dismiss it as rubbish. When you look at it that way then I would agree, but the courts on the Island do tend to take it easy on the women compared to the male in a break up. Example. The wife of a mate of mine pissed of with the barman from the Cat with no Tail pub and left her 6 kids with the farther (all at school). She then had the cheek to take him to court for the house, she ended up being paid half the value of the House. My mate took her to court for child support but ended up getting sod all as the court believed she was not working. Happy ending to this my mate met and married a Thai girl and is very happy, takes care of the kids like her own and they now have another child together. My first wife pissed off with some guy while I was working in Holland, when I came back to the Isalnd I got stuck with all her Bills, even the ones she clocked up after she pissed off, the court went on her side. By the way if you wife does go make sure you put an add in the local press and that of where she lives, if not your responsible for her depts. Ans I could give you loads of examples. Try this one Another mates wife pissed off with a guy and took the kid with her, she was awarded £133 per week by the courts, her new boyfriend was not into kids so she dumped the kid back to the childs father, he took her to court and was only awarded £41 per week, yet the wife had a better job. I have plenty of respect for the single parent who brings up the kids regardless of sex, but cant stand those that dont support their kids, the courts should lock those types up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsea Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Yes, I live on the IOM and pay massive taxes. You dress up state homes however you want they are still council houses. As I said in my original post kids are a social responsibility, and I don't grumble. However, for every tax break, that money has to be made up somewhere, and that will be by taxing someone else. Why should I be taxed more so that someone can buy a house they cannot afford? Well if you pay massive taxes over here then you are surely earning considerably more than people who are in need of tax relief. If you think low income families want tax relief in order to buy a house then you have no idea. Tax relief would probably give a family around £50-100 extra a month which they can use for food, heating, new school shoes etc This may not seem like a lot to you, but to others it can make a huge difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I would imagine the number of female defaulters was a lower percentage then their male equivalent. Women in general tend to have more social conscience. Unless you can back up your assertion with some evidence, I think it's pretty safe to dismiss it as rubbish. When you look at it that way then I would agree, but the courts on the Island do tend to take it easy on the women compared to the male in a break up. Example. The wife of a mate of mine pissed of with the barman from the Cat with no Tail pub and left her 6 kids with the farther (all at school). She then had the cheek to take him to court for the house, she ended up being paid half the value of the House. My mate took her to court for child support but ended up getting sod all as the court believed she was not working. Happy ending to this my mate met and married a Thai girl and is very happy, takes care of the kids like her own and they now have another child together. My first wife pissed off with some guy while I was working in Holland, when I came back to the Isalnd I got stuck with all her Bills, even the ones she clocked up after she pissed off, the court went on her side. By the way if you wife does go make sure you put an add in the local press and that of where she lives, if not your responsible for her depts. Ans I could give you loads of examples. Try this one Another mates wife pissed off with a guy and took the kid with her, she was awarded £133 per week by the courts, her new boyfriend was not into kids so she dumped the kid back to the childs father, he took her to court and was only awarded £41 per week, yet the wife had a better job. I have plenty of respect for the single parent who brings up the kids regardless of sex, but cant stand those that dont support their kids, the courts should lock those types up. /holds back from making comments about responsible parenting rather than 'pissing off'/. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 My first wife pissed off with some guy while I was working in Holland, Only because I am interested in such things, Im sure you will understand, why if you are male ... do you have a female avataar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 Most men don't get 'residence orders' (or custody as it used to be called) I did this morning, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minxie Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 Most men don't get 'residence orders' (or custody as it used to be called) I did this morning, Congratulations that's good news for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Agitator Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 Everything is about 'disposable' income, when you enquire about a mortgage it all goes great until they ask "So do you have any other outgoings? Childcare etc?......Oh, £900pcm....sorry, the best we can offer you would probably buy you a shed. So you think they should give you a mortgage based on an income that is £900 more than you actually earn? That would be pretty stupid of them. It's an outgoing expense and it's no different than your food bill, gas bill or petrol money. I too have to pay childcare and I have a substantial mortgage that I manage to pay on my own. I make sacrifices, do without things and accept that I simply can't afford to do everything i want. I accepted these restrictions before I had kids and before I bought my house. Seriously, maybe you should have given consideration to the financial implications of having children before you popped them out. I quite agree with ans, stop maoning about it and do what the rest of us do. make sacrifices, get a better job. we all have equal opportunities on the isle of man, but some choose not to pursue them and think the state owes them a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Agitator Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 pay massive taxes every year, a large proportion of which goes into a pot to pay for schooling other people's children, to support their tax relief, to subsidise council housing, etc. I could grumble about this but I don't. However, when people start making socialist remarks, wanting me to pay more to subsidise them that really annoys me. From the above, it appears you live in the UK (massive taxes, council houses) and not IOM...so why do you care? I also tend to agree with Lonewolf, children should be seen as a social responsibility and not just those of the parents who have chosen, or in some cases not chosen to have kids. I dont hear anyone moaning about kids getting grants to go to Uni because their parents can not afford it or free school dinners for kid's whose parents are on benefits. Most people these days dont have kids because they are too selfish and would rather have all their money and time for themselves. Also, I dont understand how giving a tax break to people who pay £1,000's a year on childcare will increase the amount of tax for everyone else? Being a parent is one of the toughest jobs in the world and being a parent/s on a low income just makes it even harder. Yes, I live on the IOM and pay massive taxes. You dress up state homes however you want they are still council houses. As I said in my original post kids are a social responsibility, and I don't grumble. However, for every tax break, that money has to be made up somewhere, and that will be by taxing someone else. Why should I be taxed more so that someone can buy a house they cannot afford? With regard to most people who don't have kids being selfish, THAT IS THEIR CHOICE!!! where do you live if you pay massive tax? i only pay 18%, move to the UK, then you'll see massive tax bills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 Now now. The IOM is not a low tax economy, for the waged and working. It is a high tax economy. Before you receive a penny your employer pays 20% to the government, 9% for you out of your pay packet and 11% for his contribution as NI, a form of tax. Then you have tax free, then 10% and then 18%. But remember they are in addition to the 20% already gone. Top rate in IOM is actually 38%. Out of what we have left 17.5% of spends goes in VAT (except for food basics and kids clothes) and there are lots of other taxes, on beer, spirits, fags, road fuel, leaving the island, returning to the island (by boat and air), car tax etc I agree we need a debate to see how we should support people, which ones and what with, in the community. Should our taxes be used to subsidise local authority housing by underwriting the substantial defecit, or to subsidise mortgages for those who relieve the state (other tax payers) of the obligation to house them, or to subsidise private health care, single parents, the blind, disabled or elderly. Why should there be tax relief on life insurance or pension contributions. Why on child care costs? Is child care any different to any other education issue, why isn't it free? Is it something we should all pay for for the benefit of society as a whole, so it is free at point of consumption. Should our priorities have changed 60 years into the welfare state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThieBane Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Hmmmm, but I would say we still have lower tax than the UK in comparable situations, so we are low tax in comparison to the UK... or France, for example, where in addition to state taxes, you have to pay local taxes, town taxes, garlic taxes, hide in the cellar eating cheese and waving white flag taxes... * some of those aren't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5-demerits Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 When we had our second child, my wife’s firm paid our child care bills directly, we then paid her firm. This was not a subsidised payment from her firm but there must have been a tax advantage as the figure we paid her firm was approximately 20% less than the monthly bill. I am not sure how it worked, but I know the firm didn't lose out so there must have been a tax advantage or an expense claim in the system. I would however gladly pay a higher rate of tax to subsidise child care for all parents in work, the overall cost would not be that significant on a per person basis. I also believe that the state should supply child care allot more than it already does. minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 and we have taxes/duties on matches, mechanical lighters, I could go on, and they are all true. I just want people to realise we are not a tax haven, or even a low tax economy. We are a lower than some tax economy. Probably at the US level. Way below most of Western Europe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.