forever_blue Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Of course people abusing the benefits system is a problem for everyone. It's a problem for us and its not even good for them to live such shitty, pointless lives. I don't excuse it. Point with the tabloids though, is that getting the most disgusting caricature they can find and constantly holding them up as an example allows total morons to lose any perspective of the weight of each problem. fair point ,I have just as much a problem with someone like this woman frauding the system as I do a amjor corporation etc although obviously the numbers involved are huegely different I just don't see using one to excuse the other as a good attitude or any way forward to solve both problems. as for your point on tabloids i could not agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Spot on. There was a poll last year that showed people believed nearly a quarter of every pound claimed was claimed fraudulently. When actually it's less than a penny per pound. And half the amount that goes unclaimed IIRC, no point in letting facts get in the way now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Nooka Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 What do you think eugenics is? I certainly don't think it is natural selection or survival of the fittest. Eugenics can be selective breeding based not just on beneficial traits but also irrational prejudice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy85 Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 So apparently stealing a packet of crisps is on the same level as robbing a bank. What a fucking simpleton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 So apparently stealing a packet of crisps is on the same level as robbing a bank. What a fucking simpleton yes that is exactly the point I was making jimmy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy85 Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 yes that is exactly the point I was making jimmy. Yeah, I think you're done here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Yeah, I think you're done here. wibble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Who's the trooper who took 1 for the team and pumped that? The real question on every guys lips here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Who's the trooper who took 1 for the team and pumped that? The real question on every guys lips here Reading the story, her first was conceived after a one night stand. Clearly when the beer goggles wore off he topped himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Reading the story, her first was conceived after a one night stand. Clearly when the beer goggles wore off he topped himself. Or she ate him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 I am strongly against tax evasion but at least a tax evader is making the effort to earn THEMSELVES a living, there are plenty of scumbags like this heifer who will be perpetual scroungers and without them we'd all be better off regardless of tax evasion or avoidance.Aye 'cos they cut welfare and divvy it up among the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 the government controlled media trying to justify more cuts by highlighting a tiny minority who think like this. Little sheep will fall for it though and blame all the countries problems on this. Even though the problem is miniscule compared to tax avoidance by large companies or the rich elite who live in stately homes and pay f**k all. the people of this country as seen in this thread are just little puppets on a string. you believe what you read, you hate what they want you to hate. you fall for it every time. My thoughts exactly. Let me get on my soapbox for the first paragraph then continue to the above quote. We (Yes voters) lost and they won, fair enough, but I consider the No voters to be a bunch of sheep – they are easily led. Let me explain. England is roughly 90% of GB and Scotland is roughly 10%. Therefore in the future (as in the past) it will be what English politicians want which will decide Scotlands future. They will decide who we are friends with or enemies of. They will spend billions and billions on a defence budget which entails travelling half way round the world to shoot people. Clearly the best form of defence is attack. They will also spend billions on a railway system in England which we in Scotland will assist in paying for. As sheep, they have meekly accepted that another country will decide Scotlands fate and future. Shame on you. You have also agreed to continue with this scandalous example of taking from the poor to give to the rich. This woman is getting £40 million pounds per year from the taxpayer without her lifting a finger. At the same time the government is clawing back benefits from the poor. BBC News 26 June 2014 Queen's income set to rise to £40m next year The Queen's income is expected to rise by more than 5% next year after the Crown Estate announced record profits. The Sovereign Grant, which covers the costs of the Queen's official duties, will reach £40m next April. The grant is calculated as a percentage of profits from the Crown Estate, which includes properties such as Windsor Park and much of the UK coastline. Meanwhile, Buckingham Palace accounts show about a third of the grant is spent maintaining the royal palaces. 'Disrepair' The accounts, also published on Thursday, show that more than £4m has been spent on converting offices in Kensington Palace into an apartment for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince George. The work included the removal of asbestos, new heating, hot and cold water, electrical services and a "simple redecoration". The furnishings and a new kitchen had been paid for privately by the Royal Family, a palace official said. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge paid for the furnishings of their new apartment A Kensington Palace spokesman said: "Before the project started, the residence was in a state of disrepair. "It was last refurbished in 1963." Spending on property maintenance increased by £4.2m to £13.3m, the accounts show. In January, the Commons Public Accounts Committee warned of a maintenance "backlog" with some properties in a "dangerous or deteriorating condition". We take our responsibility to run as efficient an operation as possible” Sir Alan Reid Keeper of the Privy Purse 'Efficient operation' Travel expenditure was also revealed, including the £255,000 cost for the Prince of Wales to attend Nelson Mandela's funeral. Palace officials said that was due to the complexity of getting him to a relatively remote location at short notice. Buckingham Palace said the cost of the monarchy - not including security - was equivalent to just over a penny a week for every person in the United Kingdom. Under a formula set in 2012, the Sovereign Grant rose to £37.9m in April and will go up a further 5.7% to £40m in the next financial year. It is tied to the income from the Crown Estate, which has published record profits of £267m. Aside from the Queen's income, the rest of the profit goes to the Treasury. Sir Alan Reid, keeper of the Privy Purse, said public funding of the monarchy had fallen by 8% in real terms in the last two years when maintenance costs are stripped out. He added: "We take our responsibility to run as efficient an operation as possible. "In our view we think that we do as good a job as possible in terms of trying maximise the value for money." But Graham Smith, chief executive of the group Republic which campaigns for the abolition of the monarchy, said: "The job of reporting royal finances needs to be taken out of the hands of the palace and given to some honest brokers. "The spin has to stop, the excuses have to stop, the royals need to be held to account for their profligacy." BBC News 18 May 2014 Sunday Times Rich List 'wealthier than ever' …The Queen, who has been on every Sunday Times Rich List since she topped the first one in 1989, is now worth £330m but that is only enough to see her ranked 285th… And you sheep have voted for more of the same. If we had voted Yes then England would have been left to foot the bill for all of the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 And this b*****d made £18 million in 2012 from the Duchy of Cornwall and is no wanting to pay a fair tax on it. In July, 2013 he sent his lackey to meet with a committee of MP’s to plead that he shouldn’t pay tax. This was the same week that the Government started to claw back benefits from the poor. BBC News 15 July 2013 Prince Charles's aide grilled by MPs over tax affairs The Prince of Wales is not liable to pay corporation or capital gains tax, a senior royal aide has told MPs on the Public Accounts Committee. William Nye said the Duchy of Cornwall - which provides the heir to the throne with a private income - was not a corporation and that the prince voluntarily pays income tax. Committee chairwoman and Labour MP Margaret Hodge questioned the "fairness" of the tax arrangements. The duchy estate is worth £762m. The prince was paid £19m from the estate last year and paid just over £4m in income tax and VAT. Mrs Hodge said the committee wanted to "reflect on the current arrangements to see whether or not they reflect the reality of the world today." But the royal aide said the prince's estate does not pay capital gains tax because he "doesn't have access to the capital gains. The capital gains are all reinvested in the duchy for future dukes". Mr Nye told MPs the profits were used to pay for the prince's public duties, as well as those of his wife the Duchess of Cornwall and those of Prince William, the Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry. He said that if parliament legislated to prevent Prince Charles using his private income in this way it would cost taxpayers more - to pay for his official duties - and he would be free to spend his money "on his other things". 'Taxed twice' What was a medieval entity... has been transformed into a business.” Austin Mitchell Labour MP Paula Diggle, a senior Treasury official appearing before the committee, defended the prince's tax arrangements saying that he does not pay capital gains tax because he always reinvests any profit from sales. "If the duke were to be taxed on the corporate income of the duchy as well as his income, he would be taxed twice," she said. She added that the duchy differed to other corporations because the prince "is in the unusual position of getting all the income." The duchy estate of land and property - mostly in the south-west of England - was established by King Edward III in the fourteenth century to provide a private income for his son and heir to the throne. Conservative MPs on the committee defended Clarence House's position that the duchy is in fact a private estate, not liable to certain taxes. "If it looks like a private ducal estate set up to provide an heir to the throne and it quacks like a private ducal estate set up to provide an heir to the throne, can one assume that it might just possibly be a private ducal estate set up to provide an heir to the throne?", Richard Bacon asked. But Labour MP Austin Michell said: "What was a medieval entity... has been transformed into a business." Force government action The last time Prince Charles's representatives came before the Public Accounts Committee they were accused of performing financial "jiggery pokery" and he was said to be the recipient of the "best housing benefit scheme in the world". This time the committee is fresh from finding the tax affairs of Google, Starbucks and Amazon wanting. Graham Smith, chief executive of the anti-monarchy group, Republic, said: "Everyone has a moral obligation to pay a fair rate of tax, whether that's Starbucks, Google or the heir to the throne. "We welcome the PAC investigation and hope that this exposure of the duchy's tax arrangements will force the government to act." Earlier this month, the prince faced calls from Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for West Cornwall, to "come clean" about the Duchy of Cornwall's tax arrangements. Clarence House has said public funding for the Prince of Wales fell by £1m to £1.2m in the last financial year, out of a total income of £20.2m. Again you sheep are party to this scandalous behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 The Queen's not 25 stone is she ? Wait, I'm confused, I'm not going to vote for her if she's 25 stone now. Sheesssh. ! They'll need bigger stamps and everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 She's a terrible benefit scrounger. No where near the 'boss' level of the Royal Family. Get your finger out hen. Nobody who supports the Royal Family has any right to be upset at any egregious benefit scrounger, soz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Never mind the lassie with three tits she has 4 on that top picture. Wid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracowjambo Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 The Queen's not 25 stone is she ? Wait, I'm confused, I'm not going to vote for her if she's 25 stone now. Sheesssh. ! They'll need bigger stamps and everything. They will need to print money on rolls of wallpaper. What's annoyed me about this story is the fact her sweet cupboard is better than mine . I've only got a dairy milk ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 They will need to print money on rolls of wallpaper. What's annoyed me about this story is the fact her sweet cupboard is better than mine . I've only got a dairy milk ffs. I think she's single at the moment mate, you could get yourself in there. Good luck getting your hands on her sweets though (oh err etc), she doesn't look like she likes to share. The fat burd I mean, not the Queen, she's not single but I've got hopes for the dead pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardinal Richelieu Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 I absolutely despite people who try and milk the welfare system. http://news.sky.com/story/807749/queens-bid-for-poverty-grant-slammed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jock001 Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 So apparently stealing a packet of crisps is on the same level as robbing a bank. What a fucking simpleton If you steal a packet of crisps using a shotgun and then rob a bank using a computer, which gets you the longest sentence? I agree with FB, this woman is taking the taxpayer for as much as she possibly can. If you are the CEO of a company you are legally obligated to take the taxpayer for as much as you can by your shareholders. She has an obligation to get as much for her kids as she possibly can. The difference is, the CEO will use the extra cash to benefit the shareholders while this mother is using the extra cash to turn her kids into lard asses like herself. Economically there's lots more revenue to be made closing the loopholes ihn the tax code than the loopholes in the benefits system but you can't possibly make a moral argument for someone who practices tax avoidance being as bad or worse than a lard ass demanding more money for take aways. She should be given food stamps and told if she keeps mistreating her kids they'll be taken away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.