Can this be true?

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

'Could you show the calculations that lead you to believe that 'ever poor families get a minimum of 40k gross'?'

Sure. Lets say you have a typical poor family with 2 kids, a non-working wife, and a man that the man that has a near-minimum wage job earning 15k a year. You can see the benefits they receive at http://www.entitledto.co.uk , which is the official government benefit calculator.

You can check the figures yourself on that site, but to save you the hassle they are:

7271 tax credits (both working tax credit, and child tax credit)
7167 housing benefit
1770 child benefit
= 16209 total benefit income

The man earning 15k has a take home (after tax) of 13,154. So that gives the family a total net income of 29,363, which is equivalent to a gross salary of around 39,000

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Or to work through a similar example, suppose we have another 2 child family where the wife doesnt work, and the husband earns 26k (the UK median salary). The benefits are:

3171 tax credits
5242 housing benefit
1770 child benefit
= 10,366 total benefit income

a 25k salary works out as 19,954 takehome, so the family has a net income of 30,320, which is equivalent to a gross salary of 40,500

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Also if you're paying attention, you might have noticed that going from a 15k salary up to 25k only gives you an extra 1,000 in your pocket at the end of the year.

This pattern holds the way up to salaries of around 40k - if you earning less than 40k then it doesnt matter how much your gross salary is, because everyone earns almost exactly the same amount due to benefits - we have almost literal salary equality in the UK.

Lets say you have the same couple where the husband earns 40k/gross. The benefits are now:

1770 child benefit
873 housing benefit
= 2643 total benefit income

take from a 40k salary is 30,154, so total net income is 32,797

In other words, the guy earning 40k only has an extra 3,500 in his pocket at the end of the day compared to the guy earning 15k. In fact, if you take into account a) the guy earning 40k probably has student loan repayments to make, and b) if the guy earning 15k has a third child his income will increase whereas the 40k guy's won't, its likely that the 15k guy actually has more money.

[Steve Williams - gay for Mark Knopfler]

The mother I believe is not working in either scenario.

[Berni]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

It's madness. Utter, utter madness!

[Berni]

[Brentwood]

[Classic Jorge]

[Berni]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

propaganda about 'poverty'. Aren't you angry with them?

[Classic Jorge]

You wouldn't look at a businesses balance sheet and only take the revenue into account, would you?

[Herr Floyd - PEGIDA]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

[Berni]

They'll be ages clearing up the dribble.

[redgunamo]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

with a straight face in the light of this?

[Berni]

Some of them are huge.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

It must cost a fortune to average 10,000 calories a day.

[Berni]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

How can they do it?

[Classic Jorge]

...that those people would be below the poverty line. As I say, you need to look at the outgoings to get a proper picture.

That's the thing, the state is massively helping out businesses here, subsidising people's pisspoor wages so the individual businesses don't have to.

Presumably even you can see this is a good thing, no?

[Herr Floyd - PEGIDA]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

but it's far from poverty. If the outgoings are such that an income of almost 600 a week leads to impoverishment, then the Sky TV or the fags have to go, because the outgoings are ridiculously high. IT'S NOT POVERTY.

What the government is doing is the clear result of 70 years of unbroken socialism. We have a society and a culture that is brainwashed to feel entitled, and a system to match.

[Classic Jorge]

So essentially, if someone is working like a trojan just to make ends meet then the government is not only subsidising businesses paying pisspoor, insufficient wages they are also paying the utility companies, private landlords and supermarkets too.

Your gripe about being taxed to subsidise these people should also be a gripe about being taxed in order to subsidise all the massive businesses - many of them bastions of privatised utilities and exemplars of the unmitigated success that project was - whose ridicules price hikes we're all paying for.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

You must try to concentrate on one issue at a time. I maintain that 'your' definition of poverty is ludicrous, mendacious and socially harmful. You argue with that by telling me I should moan about Big Business. These are different issues, you see.

[Classic Jorge]

b) how can you assess the financial health, or otherwise, of anything without looking at the red column? I mean, unless you're looking to prove a point you've already decided on

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

[Classic Jorge]

...just so we can prop up big business?

I'm all for a strong centralised state but at the moment we're a state behaving like a tenant farmer to the landlords of global finance.

[redgunamo]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

required.

In other words, socialism.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

[redgunamo]

*You.

[Classic Jorge]

Still, you must be a little bit grateful that this mythic beast is subsidising the wages of people in your employ. Aren't you on a net gain from all of this?

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Go on, f**k off.

[Classic Jorge]

Seriously, ask your personnel wallah how many of your staff claim tax credits, I reckon it'll make you feel much better to see just how much this vicious, creeping dead hand of evil socialism is actually helping you as an employer.

[Snin]

:-) oh well never a claimer be..hence why im happy to avoid tax ;-) seems fairy nuff

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Would you like to inspect my payroll, Mr Presumptuous? Or are you some sort of abusive employer, convinced we're all as bad as you?

[Classic Jorge]

And far be it from me to doubt your figures :rubchin:

[Berni]

[Classic Jorge]