1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

I am being published !!!!!

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by Sphinx, Jun 21, 2014.

  1. Atavar

    Atavar Well-Known Member

    Excellent news, great to hear you have been able to get some information to your advantage and are continuing to push forward with it :DYou'll have the front page in no time :)
     
  2. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Mick,

    Ah... Well... Sort of.

    Your question cuts to the very heart of the matter. What sort of person uses the phrase "stealth tax" and in what circumstances?

    Mostly, I'd suggest, someone who has not thought hard about what the phrase might mean, or who is trying to be dishonest in their own right, pretending that it is something different from other "non-stealth" taxes, such as corporation tax. Their aim is simply to denigrate a tax they don't like, without appearing to be too right wing.

    The thing is, I wouldn't use the words "stealth tax". I'd be honest and say either "a thoroughly disgraceful tax, designed to deceive the stupid and unwary who are too lazy to pay attention" or "a little considered tax, though obviously with enormous potential for raising money". As far as I recall the tax on mechanical lighters was raised some years ago, though I'm not sure why. This was certainly little considered, but I hae' ma doots about the money it raised.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  3. paul james

    paul james Well-Known Member

    workfare is an exceptionally good idea , without voluntary work I would have found finding my present job exceptionally hard if not impossible as it would have given a long break in my employment

    is it still slavery if working for free for a charity ? or do you pick what is or isn't slavery according to your views of the day

    I don't agree with multi million pound organisations getting workfare employees but feel the work should benefit the community

    but I 101 % agree that they should work for benefits

    if your view is no one should work for nothing then surely your views mean you also agree people shouldn't get money for nothing

    and there lies the crux of the matter is it work if it Is 0.5 secs shutter release and a 2 min upload from joe public

    when press photographers were at their height they had to pay someone that at that time was considered a highly skilled individual

    digital and the internet has de skilled photography especially as far as newspapers are concerned because practically every member of the public has a decent camera and a pc

    the newspaper doesn't care how it gets its photos it just wants something useable and fast ad probably free

    don't just look at photography look at everything around you we are at the dawn of the technology revolution

    just as the industrial revolution changed things beyond recognition for those before so to will the technology revolution
     
  4. AlexMonro

    AlexMonro Old Grand Part Deux

    It's slavery if the person doing the work doesn't have a choice about it.
     
  5. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    If it helps those discussing taxation, the term stealth tax would be those extra charges levied by Government (national or local) that would not attract the label direct or indirect taxation, especially those that are introduced between Budgets.

    An example of a stealth tax would be the fee for filing an Enduring Power of Attorney.
     
  6. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Well done, keep going. It's worth carrying in your camera bag - as well as your mobile phone - a list of the phone nos. of the Picture Desks of the major newspapers & news agencies. ;) If you can get contact names as well that can be an extra 'help' when contacting them.
     
  7. paul james

    paul james Well-Known Member

    completely disagree if they are being paid benefits in the case of workfare they are being paid for work which anyone with a social conscience is happy to do

    if they refuse to work strip the benefits from them

    I have disabilities and work, if an idle bum that is able to work and refuses it because they prefer getting benefits for nothing

    the only choice they should be given is to participate in workfare for local charities or give living with no income a shot
     
  8. Sejanus.Aelianus

    Sejanus.Aelianus In the Stop Bath

    That is one view, certainly and I'm not against it for several reasons. But...

    What about people who've inherited money and chose not to work? In a fair society, shouldn't those idle bums be told they have to do something useful or have their money taken away or is it just the poor who should be treated like that?

    As Alfred Doolittle so rightly says "What is middle class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything."
     
  9. paul james

    paul james Well-Known Member

    the difference is thy have an income and don't take from the tax payer , don't get me wrong I think benefits should b means tested

    as lots make no sense such as rich pensioners living in warm climes claiming winter fuel allowances an well off parents claiming child benefits
     
  10. mikeh201355

    mikeh201355 Well-Known Member

    Of course what you then end up with is the argument that people who are financially careful all their lives and plan for their future and save a little money are penalised but lazy, idle people who spend all their salaries on beer, chips and fags get full benefits.
     
  11. paul james

    paul james Well-Known Member

    there are more people working for low pay than unemployed or rich !! I work long hours for low pay can't afford to drink or smoke or save

    yet I'm taxed to fund the rich and unemployed


    I'm vastly more annoyed at paying for those that can afford it themselves than those that can't
     
  12. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    I can think of a 'tax', vastly increased over the last two decades, that is taken from people (on median, average & below average incomes) on threat of prosecution and fine, and that money is then paid to others who have such large incomes, that despite relatively low UK taxes on income for 20+ years, they then seek to pay even less tax and engage in tax avoidance schemes.
     
  13. mikeh201355

    mikeh201355 Well-Known Member

    The figures on tax distribution are quite sobering: 25% of the population are net contributors to the welfare state (pay more in tax than they take out in benefits), which means I am paying tax to subsidise three people; and the top 10% income bracket pay something like 40% of the tax income - so I am not sure where this 'funding the rich' comes from.
     
  14. mikeh201355

    mikeh201355 Well-Known Member

    To be honest, I couldn't follow that at all. What is this 'tax' you refer to?
    What money is paid to people with 'large incomes'?
     
  15. PhotoEcosse

    PhotoEcosse Well-Known Member

    That wording seems to be a cynical attempt to place the blame in the wrong place.

    Pensioners (rich or otherwise) do not "claim" WFA and well-off parents do not "claim" CB. Both those universal benefits are paid without any claim being made. The problem (if there is one) lies with the system rather than the recipients.
     
  16. Sphinx

    Sphinx Well-Known Member

    Just one word on means testing of benefits for pensioners - rich and poor. The reason it was decided not to means test was that the cost of doing so would mean the overall cost of the payments were not significantly different than if they paid everyone at a certain age.

    People tend to forget that means testing costs money (and introduces a greater possibility of error and fraud) so while means testing winter fuel payments could be introduced it would make bugger all difference to how much it cost the tax payer.
     
  17. southonline

    southonline Well-Known Member

    I'm all up for means testing and as for costings I'm sure somehow this could be included within a tax return - Most of my friends use there CB as a way of saving for holidays, or normally paying for flights for cheap holidays at mine :rolleyes: these people don't need the hand out and I would much sooner see families on lower incomes getting more help
     
  18. mikeh201355

    mikeh201355 Well-Known Member

    Gordon Brown had this obsession with people who he felt did not 'deserve' welfare did not get it (had their own savings etc) so he developed a byzantine system of credits and means testing. Not only is it expensive but its sheer complexity means some money doesn't get to where it is needed because people don't know what they heck they should be getting.
    And in a vain attempt to be seen to be acting properly he added more and more tests and credits to batten down the hatches.

    I read one analysis that showed the costs of administering Brown's system almost ate up all of the savings which pretty much supports Sphinx's comment.
    They then went to to extend the anaylsis that if the benefits system was a simpler, the lower running costs would actually pay for a significant increase in benefit payments. But unfortunately the self-proclaimed guardians of what is right and proper would be up in arms that some people were getting benefits when they did not need it.
    Which begs the question: if the aim is to get more money to the genuinely needy, do we accept the fact that some money goes to people who don't really 'need' it?
     
  19. Sphinx

    Sphinx Well-Known Member

    I am unable to work because of health issues - at least under the current system because my condition is variable and starting and stopping work means new claims every time.
    When Universal Credit was proposed and they started building it I was over the moon - it would mean I could work when able and stop when necessary without having to make new claims so would have a secure income.
    I have seen the pressure groups attack UC from the start - some of their points have been valid many have not been. I now fear they are going to achieve their intent and prevent UC ever being fully introduced. It breaks my heart.
    UC would be the simpler easier system - with the added advantage of being flexible which would not just help those like me with variable health conditions but help those in areas with high unemployment who currently dare not take the 2 weeks temporary work they could do because they know after those 2 weeks it could take another 6 to get a new claim up during which they would have no money.
    I just do not understand why the pressure groups are trying so hard to keep things as they are.
     
  20. mikeh201355

    mikeh201355 Well-Known Member

    I am sure there are two groups who are ideologically opposed but end up on the same side: first is the 'small government' brigade who see universal benefits as a government throwing money around and keeping spongers sponging; and the 'fairness' brigade who think people with savings should be prevented at all costs from receiving so much as a penny in social welfare.
    The only thing that matters to me is gettign as much money as possible to people who need it all within a carefully managed system.

    What peopel forget is that once you introduce a complex benefits system you also spend one heck of a lot more money investigating people who you suspect claiming it when they shouldn't.
     

Share This Page