I would be if i knew it was a fact. Sorry i thought i'd made that clear. Move on, there are bigger issues in this thread for you to respond to with more suppositions.

 

I can't give you numbers, but I can say I am one of those to some extent. I'll not lie, I have used NHS services, but that is where it ends. I have no kids and don't claim/am not entitled to any benefits. That is true for the vast amount of my colleagues.

I would imagine it would be difficult to find any data to back up his claim as it's very specific, but my comments are based upon what I see and I would imagine a lot of people in low paid jobs are in similar situations.

 

I'm saying it's rare because of its specificty, but as i say, i can't find data to prove it one way or another.

The point/implication it was making, however, is that the low-paid are not big users of state funded services or benefits, widening the net from dentists. That is clearly just ludicrous.

 

Already have , Tel. Proven that more household don't have dependant kids than do

And here's the coup de grace:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/persona...lease-note.pdf

Breakdown of what people earn.

So now I have provded you with proof that more houseshold dont have kids than do. That 25% of the entire tax paying population earn circa £12K (see page 11)

As for dentistry

https://www.simplyhealth.co.uk/shcor...urvey_2012.pdf

In our 2010 Annual Dental Survey 39% of people said they had struggled to find an NHS dentist.

Now, that, my friend, is an *** whupping.

Or are you still going to claim that having no kids, being on less than 12K and struggling to find an NHS dentist is rare?

 

How can you say that is ludicrous? What benefits are you talking about, ignoring dentists?

As much as Pete may be making assumptions, so are you.

 

"Had struggled". ****'s sake. Pete at one point in my life i've struggled to find a pub that sells London Pride. Please stop making 2 + 2 = 5. We've moved on.

 

Incapacity, housing, employment, sickness, disability etc etc. Why do i need to list them? Sorry missing your point i think

 

Now that is grasping at straws on a whole new level. Are we "moving on " now because you have nothing at all to counter that? Thought so

I'm happy with the conclusive proof I have provided. Stands up pretty well against your "no proof whatsoever" tactic I reckon . Job's a good'un

 

Sorry , exactly what Incapacity, sickness, employment and disability benefit are people earning £12K claiming?

Isn't the fact they are earning £12K a bit of a giveaway?

Come on Tel, start thinking for ****s sake!

 

That's how you "prove" all your points, Pete. A statistic about people who have struggled to find a dentist. No data about people under £12k who don't use an NHS dentist whatsoever. And you call it conclusive proof. You define a Socialist. And that's not a good thing.

 

Earning £12k excludes you from any benefit? Is that your latest "point". I really will have to find something better to do if it is.

 

Just a cursory glance shows that the number people who struggled to find a dentist peaked in the last year Labour were in office and had fallen in the following under a Tory government.

 

When earning £12k, all of those are unavailable, with the exception of disability living allowance. At 12k a person isn't even able to claim working tax credits, a joint income for couples is £16k as far as I know. On a low wage, there is almost no help in terms of benefits.

So, with the exception of using the NHS, low earners cost very little.

 

No, brains, I mean that if you are working and earning 12K you are not going to be claiming "sickness benefit" as you term it. Or Disability benefit (unless of course you are disabled, and thats got nothing to do with your earnings) nor do you qualify for any number of benefits Because you are working and earning.

 

If you are low paid and have no kids, you get nothing.

 

@ Lisa Somebody with facts

Totally take your point about somebody earning £12k, but this was (i thought) a wider discussion about the low paid claiming the majority of benefits or State funded services. And despite unbelievably weak distractions away from that central point, higher tax rate payers are overly clobbered in relation to what they take out of the system.

 

So despite it being proven to you that someone on 12K not takign any benefits, you still insisit that low paid people take the majoirty of benefits.

Genius

You are so uninformed and ignorant its frightening.

Do you know what the biggest Slice of the welfare budget goes on? Pensions

The NHS has the next biggest slice. And everyone benefits from that. Rich and Poor. Unless you think Bupa offer ambulances and emergency operations.

Roads? , we all benefit from roads. The rich dont have thier own roads yet.

Defence, yup, we all benefit from that. No private army for the rich.

Transport. Well if you have ever been to the city of London, you will find that an awful lot of rich people use the tube.


You, mate, are talking out of your ****ing **** and have been since post one on this subject.

 

Some are yes, ( i read recently about a fund manager that pays 34m in income tax) but my point is so are a LOT of very low paid. As for numbers (not easy to find) i dont know, i can only talk about people i know. ie a lad at work, in his 30's lives with mum and dad, no kids, works 50 hours a week on nights, earns about 16k and will be taking nothing from the state.

Its not correct to say the majority of benefits are taken by the low paid. The majority of benefits are taken by.

1. The NO paid.
2. Low paid with kids.
3. Poor pensioners.

...........oh, and the third largest benefit bill of 12 billion, child benefit, go's to everyone. Completely dwarfs the 3 billion jobseekers allowance bill.

 

PB I think you're missing the point that TB is making and that is proportion.

 

No it doesn't!!

 

And so we go back to the original point. Are you supporting the rich paying less and the poor paying more?

If you want to change proportion, then thats the only way to do it.

 

I thought child benefit went to everyone with kids until 2013. Then it is means tested, saving 1 billion.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

 

Yes it does. Until 2013 anyway.

 

Anyway, back to the original statement.

George Osbourne is still a ****.

Why,........he just is.!!!

 

Hold on a minute earlier on you were twittering on that nobody would turn down a £20k payrise and 'in your experience' as you got up the ladder extra money didn't usually mean extra hours only extra responsibility.

You painted this lovely picture of people jumping from £30k to £400k overnight and others being handed £20k pay rises just for turning up.

Now you just sweep all that away as though it was nothing


And I've never said the poor should pay more tax so the rich can pay less. They don't pay more tax, they pay less. I've told you this already about a hundred times. The top 1% contribute 27% of the total take.

When you say they shouldn't pay less, less than what? Less than 50%, less than 45%, what do you mean?

In my opinion 50% rate should have been cut to 40%. It is was an obscene empty gesture by a Labour party that bankrupted the country whilst licking the a88es of millionaires and wanted one last chance of pretending they were on the side of the poor.

I'm not saying the poor should then pay MORE to fund this, we just make the appropriate cuts in public services to make the books balance.

We can only afford what we can afford, we can't just carry on thinking we can provide all these services if we can't afford it. We can't just do it by either borrowing ourselves to oblivion or by trying to tax people into the same.

 

I don't see why it would if you give people a tax free amount then tax all at the same rate above that. The 80/20 Rule suggests that 20% of taxpayers pay in 80% of the UK wide tax take so the other 80% (the "low earners") pay in the remaining 20% ie raising the tax free amount must benefit the majority as the majority have "low" wages.

TX.

 

Okay, let me clarify, it only goes to those who have children NOT EVERYONE!!

 

No I'm not in support of the rich paying less, but I do feel that they are already paying their fair share. The marginal rate of tax being paid by the 300,000 or so people in the 1% is around 58% of their income.

As already pointed out, the 1% contribute almost a third of the nations total income tax revenue, that is £47bn a year to the treasury. The 3.7 million who are in the 40% tax bracket generated a total revenue of £57bn and those in the 20% tax bracket generated £17bn in tax revenue. I don't agree with just keeping increasing the tax burden on the rich as eventually the more mobile high rate payers will simply move to a more tax friendly country or use more aggressive tax avoiding strategies.

 

Thank god, somebody sums it up perfectly. However I'm sure Pete Brant will continue to live in loony left la la land.

 

To be honest, Tel, I got a bit lost as to what any of us were discussing and just chipped in when I could.

Of course, if a higher tax rate payer pays for all services themselves (i.e. healthcare, education), then you are correct in that it could appear they are being clobbered, however, Pete does make some relevant points in post 167. At the same time, all I was pointing out, is the same can be said for low earners, depending on their circumstances, in that it basically comes down to if they have kids or not.

In post 168, Paulr is probably right in his account of who claims the most in benefits.