rmanx Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Instead of throwing stones at each other from both sides of the argument, does anyone have an idea of how we should calculate a decent income threshold for those living on benefits so that it is enough for their needs but is not encouargement for a life on benefit and is fair to those who actually work and pay for it? How can we do this? Hmmm piss about 1.2 billion in benefits (most of which is pensions) or get angry about the 16 billion short fall from tax "efficient" companies... Lets fix the bigger problem first then worry about the flaff shall we Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted July 9, 2015 Author Share Posted July 9, 2015 The 'tax efficient' situation is being addressed, don't you read international press? Let me help you: Amazon to start paying more EU taxes after pressure from regulators I leave you to find out what's happening with Starbucks. And others... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 The 'tax efficient' situation is being addressed, don't you read international press? Let me help you: Amazon to start paying more EU taxes after pressure from regulators I leave you to find out what's happening with Starbucks. And others... "more" "after pressure" I smell a token gesture which amounts to no real change. Paying $6 million on $7 billion profit in the UK is less than 0.1%. I am sure they can afford to stretch to say...$12 million (wow 100% increase on last year) and barely even notice its gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Instead of throwing stones at each other from both sides of the argument, does anyone have an idea of how we should calculate a decent income threshold for those living on benefits so that it is enough for their needs but is not encouargement for a life on benefit and is fair to those who actually work and pay for it? How can we do this? Hmmm piss about 1.2 billion in benefits (most of which is pensions) or get angry about the 16 billion short fall from tax "efficient" companies... Lets fix the bigger problem first then worry about the flaff shall we The 16 billion is a very movable feast that seems to change according to which organisation is making the accusation. I agree 100% that it should be sorted out and, to be fair, more is being done now than ever before to achieve it. Country by country reporting is not too far away now and this will address the tax base erosion problem of shifting profits to tax havens. Should have been done concurrent with globalisation but better late than never. However, that this situation has been allowed to exist surely does not excuse benefit abuse, does it? You are in effect saying that until tax abuse ceases, benefit abuse is totally fine. That cannot possibly be right. The 'tax efficient' situation is being addressed, don't you read international press? Let me help you: Amazon to start paying more EU taxes after pressure from regulators I leave you to find out what's happening with Starbucks. And others... I applaud the belated measures coming along to address this and they certainly are coming along now. You get the feeling that governments have only moved on it because they have their backs to the wall in finding sources of funds to feed their own enormous costs, but nonetheless it is a welcome development. Amazon is actually a very bad example. Google, Facebook and Apple would be better ones because they pretty much rape the tax base everywhere they operate including the USA. They badly need bringing to heel and are now warning their shareholders to expect adverse effects on profits in future years due to "more aggressive taxation". Amazon is a bad example as it makes virtually no profit at all because of a perverse business model that depends on everlasting expansion paid for by shareholders and bond issues on a "jam tomorrow" basis. Except tomorrow never seems to come - 21 years and counting. Meanwhile, it is a malign influence on business and the international tax base because it ruins every market it enters by undercutting indigenous businesses who do pay tax, or did so when they were profitable. Businesses like this that deliberately run at a long term loss should be subject to a turnover tax in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Paying $6 million on $7 billion profit in the UK is less than 0.1%. I am sure they can afford to stretch to say...$12 million (wow 100% increase on last year) and barely even notice its gone. I think you'll find 7 billion SALES and bugger all profit as a matter of fact (see above). Amazon: Byword for corporate lunacy. http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=AMZN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Cost of living? Taking ourselves we live quite comfortably on around £30 per week on food for the two of us and our other bills come to an average of around £120 per week. That is partially because of our council tax because of the taxable value of our home. We don't need a car other than for our business so I'll leave that out and our house insurance costs quite a bit so I've reduced that in our expenditure. likewise the television, telephone, and mobile phones we don't need so they're left out. We don't smoke, we don't drink, and we don't need to go out - all unnecessary expenditure so that's left out. We also wear clothing appropriate to the weather so don't use energy to raise the temperature of our home to match the clothing we wear, instead we wear the clothing to meet the temperature of our home. Our housing costs if we had to rent would also be in the order of £100 if we rented what we needed and so if people managed their lives sensibly the benefits system could more than cover their essential expenditure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 You DO need to go out!! That is a basic human need. Go out and associate with fellow humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 You DO need to go out!! That is a basic human need. Go out and associate with fellow humans. We do. In church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sick Moon Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Taking ourselves we live quite comfortably on around £30 per week on food for the two of us What? What on earth do you eat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Taking ourselves we live quite comfortably on around £30 per week on food for the two of us What? What on earth do you eat? £2.14 a day per person? I call bullshit of the highest order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Priced menu please, Spook. Then we can send it to Iain Duncan Smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 You may get away with £30 in any given week, but surely that will be on the basis that you have a well stocked larder/freezer with the basics and the £30 is for fresh stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I tried looking this up and the closest I could find was a study on the *shudder* BBC. According to a boffin, an adult "could" get their 2000ish calories a day on £12 a week. However it was stressed that it was more likely closer to double that to allow for "cooking", so more accurately £24 a week per person. So spooky is short almost £20 a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Cost of living? Taking ourselves we live quite comfortably on around £30 per week on food for the two of us and our other bills come to an average of around £120 per week. That is partially because of our council tax because of the taxable value of our home. We don't need a car other than for our business so I'll leave that out and our house insurance costs quite a bit so I've reduced that in our expenditure. likewise the television, telephone, and mobile phones we don't need so they're left out. We don't smoke, we don't drink, and we don't need to go out - all unnecessary expenditure so that's left out. We also wear clothing appropriate to the weather so don't use energy to raise the temperature of our home to match the clothing we wear, instead we wear the clothing to meet the temperature of our home. Our housing costs if we had to rent would also be in the order of £100 if we rented what we needed and so if people managed their lives sensibly the benefits system could more than cover their essential expenditure. I now understand why you chose to live in Norfolk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I was thinking of 5 loaves and 2 fishes... And blessed are the cheese-makers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.