I
was driven to think about the absurd situation that most single people
have in life regarding working. Most of us agree that we work out of a
sheer need and desire for a better lifestyle. It’s a very good reason
actually, born out of a need to have more things that make our lives
more comfortable and tolerable.
However, ever since I can
remember (1985 to be precise, when I left school) I was confronted by
the thought that claiming benefits brought with it far more rewards
than work could. In hindsight I was earning £35 per week, for which the
average bed-sit rent was around £30 - £40 per week at the time. The
dole was around £19 per week for under 18’s and if I were renting would
have received full housing benefit to cover this cost on top. Earning
£35 per week I would have had to pay 65 pence in every £1 I earned
above £19 towards my rent. Therefore I would have had to pay £10.40
towards my rent leaving me with £24.60 of my then earnings to spend on
as I pleased. A wapping £5.60 better off per week than being on the
dole. I know, this was 1985, when a fiver bought a whole evening out on
a Saturday night, but still, even my pea-sized brain at 16 had worked
out, that working was indeed a waste of time. Fortunately, though I
dabbled with unemployment for a year or so, I quickly became bored and
decided work was perhaps a better way of improving my lot in the long
run.
Now to the current situation, take an average earnings for
someone in London, say between £28,000 - £30,000. If you are one of
these people stuck in this wage bracket, you are no doubt the ones
suffering the most. Why, you may ask? Well at current rates a salary of
£30,000 is taxed at a rate of £7985.12 a year and at £28,000 a year at
£7325.24. This includes National Insurance payments as well, bless
them! If you don’t believe me, please check the figures out yourself, as the link directs you
.
Of course there is Council Tax to consider as well, which if we assume
them to be in band A (the cheapest) with a single person discount the
current charge is anywhere between £850 - £1,000 per year in most
London boroughs. I’m not even gonna go near sales tax, currently riding
at 17.5%, a nice little skim on our regular purchases, but kind of
abstract all the same, just the way these thieving cartels (govts) like
it of course.
In all this we see a continual drain on our monthly
incomes from a filthy lying scum that produces nothing accept thievery
upon the masses. As some great soul tunes best described us performed
in the 60’s & 70’s, we are nothing but ‘money makers’ for these
lazy arses (govt). Now of course one must juxtapose this against Tax
Credits, an infamous method for which govt encourages parenthood. Tax
Credits are undoubtedly the most difficult benefit to work out. Indeed
it is variable depending on your own individual circumstances. Believe
me when I say it took me a fair while to put these into some kind of
financial perspective that the layman could understand. Let me first
explain that you can claim a Tax Credit (with children mind) on as much
as £58,000 per year, as much as £66,000 per year if the poor blighter
is under one years old. Who in God’s name would consider asking for
benefits earning £66,000 per year? With the current inflation rates and
the knowledge I’ve gleamed thus far, I would definitely consider it now
mind.
And this is what I mean. One would have hoped that having
reached £66,000 per year gross earnings that you wouldn’t need to go
cap in hand to the govt for a few extra crumbs. But given a govt that
recognises a need to explain its very existence, a few crumbs may
indeed provide them with sufficient justification. Given that on those
earnings you would be paying £21,460.92 per year in tax and national
insurance I would say a few crumbs were indeed wanting. So what do us
wage earners decide given this financial conundrum we are faced with?
We decide to have fewer kids at an older age. Decisions to marry or
cohabit tend to be based on financial need alone, forgetting our
personal needs and responsibilities towards these important
relationships, particularly to that of children. Those of us that have
worked hard and given ourselves beyond average earnings are punished
with higher taxes to feed the so called poor, for whom do nothing and
achieve very little and on the whole contribute nil to the rest of the
world in the form of production. They tend to learn little or nothing
about getting along with people, because there is no net gain for them
in fostering good relationships with people, because there entitlement
(benefits) give them all they require. Welfare is a cancer that eats
away at people’s hopes and dreams and provides zilch to a person’s
happiness and well-being.
On the flip side there are those, who
are working themselves to death, so that they can provide a good life
for themselves and their families, who are forced to work longer hours
including the wife or Mother of their children. This means they must
leave their children in childcare, often with individuals they haven’t
had much opportunity to talk with and make a good judgement as to their
character. It’s appalling that a couple earning £33,000 each per year
are forced to hand over £8975.72 each per year in taxes. These are most
definitely the net losers within our system. They will have to pay
proportionately far more in taxes than they will ever receive in
benefits and will be thanked all the less for it. They are told of
course that they are wealthy and enjoying a life that is beyond the
reach of the average person. However, since when did someone who has
worked hard deserve to have a proportion of their income given to a
couple who have no intention of improving their lives through their own
labour? The moral distinction is clear, them that work hard are
punished and them that sit around are rewarded for their ineptness and
rewarded further by producing yet more children. Whereas a couple
earning £33,000 per year each are expected to swallow the cost whole,
of every child they produce thereafter. Which family is more likely to
make the positive choice to bare more offspring in your opinion?
Another
pernicious thing is regarding the area of social housing, otherwise
known as Council housing or housing associations. On the whole the
social sector of rentals is filled to brimming with the entitled, only
some 8% of tenants are working full time and claiming no benefits at
all. For the most part, these cheap subsidised rents have no effect on
the incomes of the entitled. The only possible positive effect that
these cheaper rents provide the tax payer is less tax being spent on
housing benefit payments. Who gains from this of course? Govt does.
Whilst the general tax payer swallows the cost of market value rents,
the inept wallow in cheap housing, for which the govt gladly spends
less of our money to waste on other pursuits. These cheaper rents would
be an enormous boost to the productive, almost as good as a 30% drop in
taxes. But no, social housing is there to provide a cheap housing stock
for govt to give to the inept who will never climb out of their
malaise, thus keeping govt costs down as much as possible.
I am
not saying of course that all people that find themselves on welfare at
some point in life are all inept. Of course, many people find that
their career and earning potential dries up significantly at certain
times in their lives. This is every more reason that when those who are
at their most productive should be given the opportunity to save their
earnings in perpetuity. Then, when they are in need, they can draw
upon that rich vein of resource they were able to amass during their
most productive years. Instead they are left to fend upon the arbitrary
nature of govt generosity and how much they feel these individuals are
entitled too at any given time. In the long run govt considers their
value to be the same as that of someone claiming entitlements
throughout their lives. Only those rich enough (the super rich) can
easily disguise their resources so as to hold on to them better and not
be left with bugger all when the less productive times arrive.