Political Petitions

[The Kaiser]

It could have been worded far better, but I have to agree that people with not a great deal of money and on benefits really shouldn't be having children.

If you're struggling already - how does that not make it even worse? And why should we taxpayers pick up the bill for them?

I just relocated back to the UK and got paid a relo allowance. I paid over £20,000 in tax in that one payment!!!! Still makes my blood boi. Where is all that fricken money going???

[The Kaiser]

I can't believe in 2013 people bring class up....

I am much better off under Conservative policies than Labour and my old man is as working class as they come and grew up in Kingswood....

[havanatopia]

Anyway, the reason there aren't enough houses is because the population has increased too quickly.

Up 3 million in 6 years.

Without wanting to sound too radical, perhaps there should be a little less immigration?? Ooh, controversial!

Also, perhaps there should be a birth control cap too! Too many "poor" people having too many kids that they can't actually afford!

Doesn't really help does it?

I blame it squarely at the door of that other 'leftie' Blair... He got up in the commons and declared immigration is good which, to be fair, is not entirely untrue only his prediction of about 10,000 Poles coming in was wrong by a factor of about 50 to 1. Then of course the message got out and most of Europe and near Asia made a bee line for Dover.

Still... He's reducing the number by 1 especially now he's buying himself an oh so lefty private jet. Foot and Bevan would be turning in their boxes.

[LondonBristolian]

Haha... I was wondering how long it would take for the class ticket to crop up.

How do you explain away Milbanders private education then? Guess its ok for a leftie to have it but for a rightie its absolutely disgraceful. Such hypocrites most of the left. Cake and eat it types.

I've no problem with anyone's class but I do have an issue with the way a government comprising of people who've grown up in relatively privileged circumstances cynically demonise and spread untruths about some of the worst off and most vulnerable in society in order to make their policies more palatable.

[exiledinwatford]

Technically it is a reduction of benefits if you've got a larger council house than you need. The problem is that it's based on an entirely inaccurate assumption that people living in larger houses than they need do so by choice. In the majority of cases it's because they can't afford to move into private accommodation and the council doesn't have enough accommodation spare to offer them anything smaller. So it punishes people for something they can't really control.

The problem with the current government is the constant amount of misinformation about the amount of money that gets spent on benefits for people who don't really need them.

For example, the amount of deliberate benefit fraud is about £2 billion a year. Which sounds a lot until you bear in mind that £3.5 billion is spent on benefit errors. So that's £5.5 billion we spend a year on benefits for people who don't really qualify for them. Sounds bad, right? Until you consider that £12.3 billion of benefits are unclaimed. So actually, even taking into account fraud and errors, we still pay £7 billion less in benefits than people are really entitled to.

And when you factor in the £32 billion we lose through tax evasion and tax avoidance, you really do wonder why the Conservatives are so keen to amp up the rhetoric against benefits cheats and ignore the 16 x higher figure we lose to big businesses not paying their taxes.

So we should really INCREASE benefits to encourage people to stop working for these nasty big companies, force them out of business. That'll teach 'em. Tax evasion is illegal tax avoidance is common sense.

[bristolborn_and_red]

Ukip giving power to the people? They're about as right wing as you can get without being called a Nazi.

Really? Please explain.

[chipdawg]

The only reason they oppose a tax is because it suggest that you own something of which a portion can be taxed by the government, as opposed to them owning everything including all your future labour.

Only if you're a genuine Marxist and Stalin made sure most of them were done away with in the 1930s. Communism today is much more about a centralist authoritarian government operating a 'closed-circuit' capitalist system in which the profits of the labour all go to the government to be redistributed to all as they see fit. Everyone has a 'job' and all are equals paid the same in theory, but as Orwell's allegory in Animal Farm so succinctly put it, "some are more equal than others"

Communism in its purest form has never really existed (apart from on paper) other than for fleeting periods in specific places such as Russia during the revolution or Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War. The theories of Marx and best intentions of Trotsky seem to instantly decay into the iron fist policies of Stalin. Human beings are not equals and so are never destined to live as such

[The Kaiser]

UKIP's tax and reform policies are a shiteload better than either of the main two parties.

[LondonBristolian]

So we should really INCREASE benefits to encourage people to stop working for these nasty big companies, force them out of business. That'll teach 'em. Tax evasion is illegal tax avoidance is common sense.

Claiming benefits is every bit as legal as tax avoidance is and costs us far less. I'm not arguing for increasing benefits. I'm just arguing against perpetuating the myth that our country's financial problems come from cynical use of the benefit system when it actually costs us a really small amount of money compared to other problems and loopholes in the tax and welfare system.

I agree that tax avoidance is perfectly logical if the system allows it but I definitely don't really buy into the idea that tightening up legislation to make people pay the going tax rate will make any big business go under. To me that seems either an incredibly naive or an incredibly cynical argument.

[The Kaiser]

Tax avoidance and tax minimisation are massively different beasts.

If you are talking about the things I've been using such as double tax-offset relief, Fringe benefit streamlining or offshoring relief - thats not tax avoidance.

You cant avoid something you have never had to pay in the first place.

However tax avoidance - eg skipping the country owing a fortune and refusing to pay what is owed - that is a big wrong and I support halting that and seizing of assets.

I am however in favour of cutting the welfare system - its a joke how much is doled out these days.

[chipdawg]

It could have been worded far better, but I have to agree that people with not a great deal of money and on benefits really shouldn't be having children.

If you're struggling already - how does that not make it even worse? And why should we taxpayers pick up the bill for them?

I just relocated back to the UK and got paid a relo allowance. I paid over £20,000 in tax in that one payment!!!! Still makes my blood boi. Where is all that fricken money going???

I'm not being funny mate and I have no doubt that whatever you do you earn your pay, but if you're paying £20k tax on a relocation package, you can probably afford your tax burden more than many others on here can

[real_bristol]

Technically it is a reduction of benefits if you've got a larger council house than you need. The problem is that it's based on an entirely inaccurate assumption that people living in larger houses than they need do so by choice. In the majority of cases it's because they can't afford to move into private accommodation and the council doesn't have enough accommodation spare to offer them anything smaller. So it punishes people for something they can't really control.

The problem with the current government is the constant amount of misinformation about the amount of money that gets spent on benefits for people who don't really need them.

For example, the amount of deliberate benefit fraud is about £2 billion a year. Which sounds a lot until you bear in mind that £3.5 billion is spent on benefit errors. So that's £5.5 billion we spend a year on benefits for people who don't really qualify for them. Sounds bad, right? Until you consider that £12.3 billion of benefits are unclaimed. So actually, even taking into account fraud and errors, we still pay £7 billion less in benefits than people are really entitled to.

And when you factor in the £32 billion we lose through tax evasion and tax avoidance, you really do wonder why the Conservatives are so keen to amp up the rhetoric against benefits cheats and ignore the 16 x higher figure we lose to big businesses not paying their taxes.

So not a tax then. I better let balls know.

Tax evasion I can't condone. Avoidance keeps us competitive and keeps a lot of number crunchers in a job.

[The Kaiser]

I'm not disputing the affordability bit - just that moving back to a country, needing to shell out on cars, find somewhere to live, ship your goods over etc etc etc - paying out 2/5 of my allowance to the fricken taxman to pi$$ it against a wall ain't in my top ten of "likes".

[Eco]

Haha... I was wondering how long it would take for the class ticket to crop up.

How do you explain away Milbanders private education then? Guess its ok for a leftie to have it but for a rightie its absolutely disgraceful. Such hypocrites most of the left. Cake and eat it types.

It's actually a strip in Private Eye, but true nonetheless. What private education did Ed Milliband have btw ?

[exiledinwatford]

"Claiming benefits is every bit as legal as tax avoidance" - it isn't if you are not entitled to them. You can make illegal claims as well as legal claims. With regards to tax there are rules in place and if you play by the rules you can legitimately reduce the amount of tax you pay. Fair enough.

With regards to big businesses, they play by the rules. We could change the rules but we have to be a little careful we don't kill the goose and make it too difficult for them to trade in UK. We're a long way from that at the moment. I loved what happened to Starbucks recently when they were shamed in the press. They didn't care one bit until their coffee shops started emptying! They soon "voluntarily" made a contribution - power to the people and all that. Now let's have a league table and start penalising the non-contributors by not buying their products. Google, Vodafone et al will soon change.

[LondonBristolian]

Tax avoidance and tax minimisation are massively different beasts.

If you are talking about the things I've been using such as double tax-offset relief, Fringe benefit streamlining or offshoring relief - thats not tax avoidance.

You cant avoid something you have never had to pay in the first place.

However tax avoidance - eg skipping the country owing a fortune and refusing to pay what is owed - that is a big wrong and I support halting that and seizing of assets.

I am however in favour of cutting the welfare system - its a joke how much is doled out these days.

I'd be interested to know how many people you know who claim benefits. Certainly most research shows that most people in the UK grossly overestimate how much is actually paid out in benefits. The newspapers choose a few freak cases and everyone wrongly thinks there's loads of people who've never worked and are claiming a fortune in benefits. Which simply is factually incorrect.

The other issue is the majority of welfare payments are actually money that goes to people in work to supplement their income because their wages are too low to live on without their families being in poverty. For all the benefits that big business brings to the economy, pushing companies to pay their workers a living wage would cut the welfare bill far more than any crackdown on benefit cheats.

[LondonBristolian]

"Claiming benefits is every bit as legal as tax avoidance" - it isn't if you are not entitled to them. You can make illegal claims as well as legal claims. With regards to tax there are rules in place and if you play by the rules you can legitimately reduce the amount of tax you pay. Fair enough.

Benefit fraud costs us less than 1% of the total welfare bill each year, accounts for less than 2% of the annual fraud in the UK and costs the UK treasury 10% of what they lose through tax fraud. Of course benefit fraud happens but it's on far too small a scale to make a genuine difference to the UK economy.

[exiledinwatford]

Tax avoidance and tax minimisation are massively different beasts.

If you are talking about the things I've been using such as double tax-offset relief, Fringe benefit streamlining or offshoring relief - thats not tax avoidance.

You cant avoid something you have never had to pay in the first place.

However tax avoidance - eg skipping the country owing a fortune and refusing to pay what is owed - that is a big wrong and I support halting that and seizing of assets.

I am however in favour of cutting the welfare system - its a joke how much is doled out these days.

That's tax evasion Kaiser and is illegal mate.

Tax avoidance is getting an accountant to stop you doing something stupid and paying more tax than you should.

[The Kaiser]

Tax "avoidance" suggests you are deliberately avoiding something you should be paying - eg evasion.

Tax minimisation is ensuring you don't pay anything you shouldn't.

[exiledinwatford]

Tax "avoidance" suggests you are deliberately avoiding something you should be paying - eg evasion.

Tax minimisation is ensuring you don't pay anything you shouldn't.

Believe me Kaiser. Tax avoidance is fine and whatever it suggests, it means looking at the tax rules and not making decisions that could cost you more tax than you need to pay. I like your term "tax minimisation" by the way - far too sensible!

[timothy bird]

Milliband didn't have a private education! him and Hus brother both went to a comprehensive school!

[chipdawg]

There is also surely a question of ethics; everyone should pay their fair share and (as a vaguely liberal socialist) I do feel that the haves should pay more than the have-nots. That said, I don't think anyone has got that right yet but in reality, all 'tax minimisation' or tax avoidance is, is trying to get out of paying your fair share in my opinion. In mitigation, I would say that despite my socialist leanings I didn't agree with Brown's 50% tax rate- no one should have to pay half their income to central government, regardless of what that income is

[The Kaiser]

I think its all subjective.

What one person may regard as paying their fair share is maybe not the same as mine.

I don't agree though that tax minisation is getting out of paying your fair share. I think it is about structuring your finances and payroll in the best way possible to ensure you don't end up paying far too much.

"Any bloke who doesn't pay as little in tax as he can is a fool, because you know something son? You blokes don't spend it well enough for me to be donating extra"

Kerry Packer at a Senate Enquiry on Tax Evasion.

[Miah Dennehy]

Or that most of the welfare budget is actually spent on state pension. No one (rightly) begrudges them that, but it gets conveniently overlooked instead of pointed out and instead "benefit scroungers" get blamed for eating up all the tax payers money.

Sadly a lot of the working class buy this BS about the 'benefit scroungers', and it's ingrained in the national psyche.

[chipdawg]

I think its all subjective.

What one person may regard as paying their fair share is maybe not the same as mine.

I don't agree though that tax minisation is getting out of paying your fair share. I think it is about structuring your finances and payroll in the best way possible to ensure you don't end up paying far too much.

"Any bloke who doesn't pay as little in tax as he can is a fool, because you know something son? You blokes don't spend it well enough for me to be donating extra"

Kerry Packer at a Senate Enquiry on Tax Evasion.

But unfortunately the majority of the populous can't afford the accountants necessary to engage in tax minimisation, so in that respect it is not fair. And I'm not sure quoting a man with the business scruples of Kerry Packer is really going to help your argument against a socialist!

[Stephen Lewis]

Should the queen let out her spare rooms?, I believe she receives state benefits.

[The Kaiser]

You dont need an accountant to tax offset.

Anything ive ever used is open to everyone. If people read up on how to do it, it aint difficult.

[City Rocker]

How do you explain away Milbanders private education then? Guess its ok for a leftie to have it but for a rightie its absolutely disgraceful. Such hypocrites most of the left. Cake and eat it types.

As has been mentioned, Miliband went to a comprehensive.

More to the point, do you seriously believe he is a 'leftie'? When was the last time Labour had a left-of-centre leader? Kinnock?

For 'Labour' read 'Tory Lite'.

[Mr Mosquito]

Easiest way to get rid of it is to vote Labour. It seems Ed is FINALLY laying out something that looks like a manifesto.

The flagship policy of the New Labour Party - now as under their war leader Tony Blair - is British jobs and social housing for foreign workers. Upper Middle Class muppet Ed Milipede hasn't done a proper day's work for a shit wage in his entire life - so how the hell is he qualified to lead the Labour Party?

[Mr Mosquito]

As has been mentioned, Miliband went to a comprehensive.

More to the point, do you seriously believe he is a 'leftie'? When was the last time Labour had a left-of-centre leader? Kinnock?

For 'Labour' read 'Tory Lite'.

'Lord' Neil Kinnock is yet another pseudo socialist come Labour leader with an aristocratic title on the EU gravy train. The unelected Lady Catherine Ashton is another example of a top Labour Party pseudo socialist. New Labour and the Tories are but different buttocks of the same EU loving traitor backside.