Cameron gets tough on benefit cheats !!!!

[JohnD]

silly invented senarios

bolloks

it's taxes paid by me and the rest of us honest citizens that make these emergency public services available when they are needed

and if you think you would be able to rouse yourself from a coma and move yourself to a comfortable private clinic you are a deluded fool

Who is worse? Someone who pays 35p for a 50p chocolate bar, or someone that steals the chocolate bar?

If you cannot see the difference, i'd suggest you are pretty bias.

What is worse? A bunch of well-heeled crooks who by fraud and deceit swindle the rest of us out of £15 billion a year.

If you can't see that, I suggest you are pretty biased, or maybe you are a swindling crook and trying to convince yourself it is forgivable.

 

[skitzee2k]

Sorry to triple post guys. But John, when you were talking about who had and had not paid for your emergency care (i.e you and me, the tax payers and NOT the tax evasion people) you seem to have left out that the benefits people haven't contributed anything either (and don't say they paid tax on their benefits as it wasn't theirs to give in the first place).

Also you seem to have missed the point that most people guilty of tax evasion DO pay tax, and in a lot of cases a LOT of tax, but they don't pay ALL they owe by hiding or protecting PARTS of their income.

I.e. you earn a few million a year but instead of the 750k owed in tax, you pay 500k.

...still nothing to be sniffed at.

 

[mointainwalker]

@skitzee2k

You are ignoring the fact that no ( next to no ?) private hospitals have either emergency or intensive care units - patients get transferred to the NHS if required.

I also don't know how quickly PMI would want to pick up the costs for convalescence if you are already in a NHS bed..

Don't understand why you introduce the subject of tax avoidance, all you do there is confuse/complicate matters unnecessarily.

EDIT

have just seen Dangermouse's post and see why you mention avoidance. Would have been moore clear if you had addressed your comment directly at the pea-brain.

 

[skitzee2k]

I wouldn't need to move me anywhere. I have a family for that.
Secondly, we have dealt with the 15 billion arguement.
The amount isn't important.

Same argument
Is it more of a crime to drop chewing gum on the pavement as this leads to a bill of 10s of thousands of pounds a year to clean up? Or is it to rob an old lady of £100?

Your logic assumes that the highest £ cost is the worse crime.

 

[skitzee2k]

PHIs are pretty good at paying their way. I know that sounds silly, but I have never had or heard of a problem as long as procedure is followed.

 

[skitzee2k]

What is worse? A bunch of well-heeled crooks who by fraud and deceit swindle the rest of us out of £15 billion a year.

If you can't see that, I suggest you are pretty biased, or maybe you are a swindling crook and trying to convince yourself it is forgivable.

Worse compared to what? You haven't given anything to compare it two.

I'll help you out if you like

What is worse,
people who work and get paid and pay part of their money to the tax office, so make a positive contribution...but not as big as people would like

or

People who do not work and claim more money than they should, so make a negative contribution.

seems pretty simple to me.

I can see why you are avoiding actually answering any questions. Is a pretty undefendable point of view you have.

 

[JohnD]

What is worse? A person in poverty who swindles £20 a week? Or a person living in prosperity who swindles £1000 a week?

Here are you, trying to say that the big-time swindler is not such a problem

is there anyone who could suggest that the prosperous man is living in such need that he is driven to stealing from the rest of us? No, it is simple greed and shameless fraud. And the sums are very large so that is where we should be putting our attention.

White-collar crime by nicely spoken people is just as despicable as any other.

Even if they live in Kent

 

[skitzee2k]

What is worse? A person in poverty who swindles £20 a week? Or a person living in prosperity who swindles £1000 a week?

Here are you, trying to say that the big-time swindler is not such a problem

is there anyone who could suggest that the prosperous man is living in such need that he is driven to stealing from the rest of us? No, it is simple greed and shameless fraud. And the sums are very large so that is where we should be putting our attention.

White-collar crime by nicely spoken people is just as despicable as any other.

Even if they live in Kent

I don't understand why you keep saying that these people are stealing? They aren't. They are just paying less than they should. Thieves are people who take things which are not theirs ( Like benefit fraudsters).

No matter how you try to twist it, the £1000 was earnt by the tax evader, so without them, the government would be worse off because they most likely still pay most tax.
The £20 is on top of all the other money they are taking off the government, so the government would be better off without them.

 

[JohnD]

I don't understand why you keep saying that these people are stealing? They aren't.

Buffoon.

If you owe £1,000,000 in tax, and, by fraud, you don't pay it, you have stolen £1,000,000 from the rest of us.

You really have no conception of dishonesty. You are far too lenient with the crooks you approve of.

 

[skitzee2k]

I don't understand why you keep saying that these people are stealing? They aren't.

Buffoon.

If you owe £1,000,000 in tax, and, by fraud, you don't pay it, you have stolen £1,000,000 from the rest of us.

You really have no conception of dishonesty. You are far too lenient with the crooks you approve of.

If you owe £1,000,000 you haven't stolen anything. You have evaded paying something. Which is illegal, but it isn't stealing.

and again, most people that commit the crime of tax evasion do not do it with their entire income. Just parts of it. So even though they are paying less, they are much much more useful than most low income people to the state.

 

[JohnD]

you're soft on (some) crime.

I wonder what other crimes you approve of.

Drink driving? Fare dodging? meter-fiddling? insurance fraud?

 

[Big Tone]

If you owe £1,000,000 you haven't stolen anything. You have evaded paying something. Which is illegal, but it isn't stealing.

That's okay then

You should come around to my house and build the conservatory for me I've always wanted.

I won't pay you for it but never mind; at least I haven't stolen anything from you.

You need to read a book, or take a course, on economics...

 

[skitzee2k]

If you owe £1,000,000 you haven't stolen anything. You have evaded paying something. Which is illegal, but it isn't stealing.

That's okay then

You should come around to my house and build the conservatory for me I've always wanted.

I won't pay you for it but never mind; at least I haven't stolen anything from you.

You need to read a book, or take a course, on economics...

Well you are entitled to take back that conservatory. As the title of it is still with you until you have been paid (I suggest you read a law book ...and maybe a book on ironic counter use of textual debating tools) . Please read what i said, I wasn't saying not paying something is good, or right. I said it was illegal. All i was saying is that you cannot be accused of theft when you haven't taken anything that doesn't belong to you.

 

[skitzee2k]

you're soft on (some) crime.

I wonder what other crimes you approve of.

Drink driving? Fare dodging? meter-fiddling? insurance fraud?

I wonder how you have come to the conclusion that I am soft on crime?

All we have done is discuss which one of two crimes is worse.

The same accusation could just as easily be aimed at you.

Considering that we haven't spoken about punishments I find it hard to see how either accusation can be based on any fact.

I may think that all tax evaders should let off and benefit fraudsters be sent to prison. This would make me soft on crime, however for all you know I may wish that all tax evaders be given a life sentence in prison but benefit fraudsters should be slowly chopped up with blunt knives.
The latter is NOT soft on crime.
(for your information, i agree with neither)

but both are completely consistent with what I have said as i have never spoken about fitting punishments.
You are jumping to conclusions for some reason. I'd advise against it as it highlights your weak argument if you have to try and make stuff up.

 

[Big Tone]

Well you are entitled to take back that conservatory. As the title of it is still with you until you have been paid (I suggest you read a law book ...and maybe a book on ironic counter use of textual debating tools)

Not if I don’t let you back in to take it back under threat of trespass or Breaking and Entering.

Please read what i said, I wasn't saying not paying something is good, or right. I said it was illegal. All i was saying is that you cannot be accused of theft when you haven't taken anything that doesn't belong to you.

Excuse me if I have missed something but, for me, this is about the drain or burden on us as taxpayers. Whether it is stolen or owed are just two sides of the same sword. It still drops your finances, or the country’s, in the sh1t!

You are placing that much smaller “burden” or “drain” squarely on the shoulders of what you perceive as vermin without even qualifying it with something to suggest there are genuine people and reasons for many being on it. (Read your own signature). Instead of going after the greedy you are targeting the small needy.

That is not only disingenuous to those people who want to work but are stuck in what’s known as the poverty or unemployment trap, (of which you have shown neither understanding nor compassion), but suggests to me you are earning enough, or wealthy enough, make these ignorant and misguided sweeping statements. I expect your social circle isolates you from ever meeting these “vermin” you speak of…