Is Universal Basic Income the way forward?

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

taxes are generally used to service the debts that are used to run these services, where did pup payments money come from?

Your point is a valid one, however PUP payments and COVID spending in general are extraordinary items that we can't repeat for a long time even if we wanted or needed to. We normally run a deficit of less than 3% of GDP.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

Your point is a valid one, however PUP payments and COVID spending in general are extraordinary items that we can't repeat for a long time even if we wanted or needed to. We normally run a deficit of less than 3% of GDP.

yes, we all know this, but is this approach now sustainable, and has the sky truly fallen, due to these rising deficits?

OMM 0000

Deleted User wrote: »

Keep moving them goal posts

You're literally proving I'm correct and you're incorrect, but you're doing that stupid thing online where you can't admit you're wrong so you'll just keep doubling down until I give up and then you can pretend you "won".

I said you can study anything you want while unemployed.

Another person said education isn't allowed while unemployed.

I provided a link proving he's wrong.

You misunderstood the link.

Now you're playing a silly game where you're pretending education means full-time education.

It doesn't.

In fact, most education is part-time.

Grow up.

OMM 0000

Wanderer78 wrote: »

yes, i educate myself for 'free' also via the internets, but how many employers would truly accept your internet accredited knowledge, particular if its not from credited providers, without any credited certification? again, free education is a myth, we do not have a free educational system!

...and is this just projectionism!

Not true.

Learn some skills and you'll realise you're very employable.

As an example, I'm in the IT industry and it's full of people who learnt programming at home.

Wanderer78

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Not true.

Learn some skills and you'll realise you're very employable.

As an example, I'm in the IT industry and it's full of people who learnt programming at home.

yes this could very well be true in your industry, but not all are interested or have the abilities to do such work, and society needs a very wide variety of qualifications, not everything can be done via coding, even though it is a critical industry

the general approach is, you need a credited qualification to even get to an interview situation, not having so, means no interview, no job!

OMM 0000

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You're literally proving I'm correct and you're incorrect, but you're doing that stupid thing online where you can't admit you're wrong so you'll just keep doubling down until I give up and then you can pretend you "won".

I said you can study anything you want while unemployed.

Another person said education isn't allowed while unemployed.

I provided a link proving he's wrong.

You misunderstood the link.

Now you're playing a silly game where you're pretending education means full-time education.

It doesn't.

In fact, most education is part-time.

Grow up.

You've said twice now that people can study anything while getting social welfare, you linked to a page proving this to not be true. Full time education includes "studying anything". I don't see what I've misunderstood. Now your degrading yourself to ad hominems. I think this discussion is over. I only replied because I was surprised someone would link to something disproving themselves.

3DataModem

I was against UBI in principle, but I am starting to come around to it.

I like the fact that it removes a shedload of red tape and admin in social welfare. No dole office. No rent allowance. No application process. No disability allowance. Just (say) 600k per month for every adult.

That would cost 25b per year. That is exactly how much will be spent on social welfare in 2021.

It would take time to phase in i.e. "What... you are not paying me dole AND rent allowance anymore?" but it could be done.

I would suggest a qualification period of 6-8 years residency, to avoid UBI tourism, or require full citizenship.

OMM 0000

Deleted User wrote: »

You've said twice now that people can study anything while getting social welfare, you linked to a page proving this to not be true. Full time education includes "studying anything". I don't see what I've misunderstood. Now your degrading yourself to ad hominems. I think this discussion is over. I only replied because I was surprised someone would link to something disproving themselves.

Will you stop, you're making a fool of yourself.

The fact of the matter is you can study whatever you want while on the dole. You just can't do it full-time.

This idea that you're not allowed educate yourself while on the dole is just an excuse. Get off your arse and learn some skills and get a qualification.

Are you going to keep lying about this?

OMM 0000

Wanderer78 wrote: »

yes this could very well be true in your industry, but not all are interested or have the abilities to do such work, and society needs a very wide variety of qualifications, not everything can be done via coding, even though it is a critical industry

the general approach is, you need a credited qualification to even get to an interview situation, not having so, means no interview, no job!

My point was you can learn things at home. You can even get qualifications which are free (or almost free) from online courses and universities.

You don't need to go into full-time education to learn things and get qualifications.

I agree with your point that we don't all have the same abilities (or drive). As we can see from this thread, people will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid accepting responsibility for their own success.

JimmyVik

JimmyVik wrote: »

I wonder will we have to pay more tax to pay for the PUP. Already. Imagine that was long term UBI. Think of the poor tax payer.

He doesn't care about taxpayers. I wonder why that is.

Wanderer78

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Will you stop, you're making a fool of yourself.

The fact of the matter is you can study whatever you want while on the dole. You just can't do it full-time.

This idea that you're not allowed educate yourself while on the dole is just an excuse. Get off your arse and learn some skills and get a qualification.

Are you going to keep lying about this?

you actually cant study whatever you want on the dole, yes theres plenty of online resources, and some exceptional ones at that, that are free to access, but can you actually gain a meaningful and credited qualification from online resources, that would lead to meaningful employment, and what if you are already struggling with complex psychological issues and disorders, potentially making these tasks virtually impossible?

whos saying you re not allowed to study, while on the dole, thats just weird now?

Deleted User wrote: »

He doesn't care about taxpayers. I wonder why that is.

who doesnt care about taxpayers, i care about all citizens, who are all more than likely or largely taxpayers?

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

you actually cant study whatever you want on the dole, yes theres plenty of online resources, and some exceptional ones at that, that are free to access, but can you actually gain a meaningful and credited qualification from online resources, that would lead to meaningful employment, and what if you are already struggling with complex psychological issues and disorders, potentially making these tasks virtually impossible?

whos saying you re not allowed to study, while on the dole, thats just weird now?



who doesnt care about taxpayers, i care about all citizens, who are all more than likely or largely taxpayers?

You do in your hole. You'd sooner see hard working people taxed to death so you can continue to kick your feet up and gather all the freebies.

I'll never vote for left leaning parties because of people like you. You have to be kept in check.

the beer revolu

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He doesn't care about taxpayers. I wonder why that is.

Do you seriously think that only people who don't pay income tax are in favour of ubi?

If so, you are very wrong.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

You do in your hole. You'd sooner see hard working people taxed to death so you can continue to kick your feet up and gather all the freebies.

I'll never vote for left leaning parties because of people like you. You have to be kept in check.

oh ffs! once again, where did the money for pup payments come from? what freebies, theres nothing free about debt?

oh dont worry, its highly unlikely any of this will occur, including with left leaning parties, the political left are atrocious, its very likely we ll default post covid, with the deficit, the deficit, the roofs on fire!!!

Viscount Aggro

I was at a party recently, bunch of heads from the flats off Pearse street.
It was a double celebration - a guy was celebrating 40 years on the dole, and that he was moving up to the old age pension payment.
This is what a lot of people aspire to.

3DataModem

3DataModem wrote: »

I was against UBI in principle, but I am starting to come around to it.

I like the fact that it removes a shedload of red tape and admin in social welfare. No dole office. No rent allowance. No application process. No disability allowance. Just (say) 600k per month for every adult.

That would cost 25b per year. That is exactly how much will be spent on social welfare in 2021.

It would take time to phase in i.e. "What... you are not paying me dole AND rent allowance anymore?" but it could be done.

I would suggest a qualification period of 6-8 years residency, to avoid UBI tourism, or require full citizenship.

600 a month wouldn’t pay the rent though. And so there would still be supplements. And a lot of that social welfare is pensions, reducing public sector pensions won’t work.

Wanderer78

Viscount Aggro wrote: »

I was at a party recently, bunch of heads from the flats off Pearse street.
It was a double celebration - a guy was celebrating 40 years on the dole, and that he was moving up to the old age pension payment.
This is what a lot of people aspire to.

very few actually, only a very small percentage of society claim welfare for that long

the beer revolu

the beer revolu wrote: »

Do you seriously think that only people who don't pay income tax are in favour of ubi?.

Please show everyone the post where I said that.

the beer revolu

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Please show everyone the post where I said that.

I didn't say you said that. Hence the question.
Your posting leads me to think that this is how you view the situation. So I asked.

Water John

Viscount Aggro wrote: »

I was at a party recently, bunch of heads from the flats off Pearse street.
It was a double celebration - a guy was celebrating 40 years on the dole, and that he was moving up to the old age pension payment.
This is what a lot of people aspire to.

What were you doing, breaking the law? You've got interesting friends.

An Ri rua

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: »

You are assuming procyclical fiscal policy is the answer to a recession. It isn’t necessarily so.

How can you discuss fiscal policy with regards to income without discussing monetary policy?
Monetary and fiscal are blending rapidly, moreso in the US but also within EU.
UBI discussions around FIAT currency are doomed to failure. Income should equal sweat /effort/ intellectual capital/ certifications accrued (through sweat/effort etc). It is easy to discuss UBI of monopoly money. Not so much with a finite money supply.

Wanderer78

An Ri rua wrote: »

How can you discuss fiscal policy with regards to income without discussing monetary policy?
Monterey and fiscal are blending rapidly, moreso in the US but also within EU.
UBI discussions around FIAT currency are doomed to failure. Income should equal sweat /effort/ intellectual capital/ certifications accrued (through sweat/effort etc). It is easy to discuss UBI of monopoly money. Not so much with a finite money supply.

can we effectively run our economies primarily on the private sector money supply, i.e. credit?

An Ri rua

3DataModem wrote: »

I was against UBI in principle, but I am starting to come around to it.

I like the fact that it removes a shedload of red tape and admin in social welfare. No dole office. No rent allowance. No application process. No disability allowance. Just (say) 600k per month for every adult.

That would cost 25b per year. That is exactly how much will be spent on social welfare in 2021.

It would take time to phase in i.e. "What... you are not paying me dole AND rent allowance anymore?" but it could be done.

I would suggest a qualification period of 6-8 years residency, to avoid UBI tourism, or require full citizenship.

600k per month? Probably excessive, but then perhaps you're adjusting for a hyperinflationary world.
Greetings, fellow precious metals bug.

Water John

An Ri rua wrote: »

How can you discuss fiscal policy with regards to income without discussing monetary policy?
Monterey and fiscal are blending rapidly, moreso in the US but also within EU.
UBI discussions around FIAT currency are doomed to failure. Income should equal sweat /effort/ intellectual capital/ certifications accrued (through sweat/effort etc). It is easy to discuss UBI of monopoly money. Not so much with a finite money supply.

Thus should acquired wealth be treated differently than earned wealth and possibly taxed higher?

Geuze

Wanderer78 wrote: »

taxes are generally used to service the debts that are used to run these services, where did pup payments money come from?

Taxes = 77bn
Debt interest = 4-5bn

You are suggesting that taxes are used just to cover interest payments on public debt?

I wonder what happens with the other 72bn of tax revenue?

Geuze

fvp4 wrote: »

600 a month wouldn’t pay the rent though. And so there would still be supplements. And a lot of that social welfare is pensions, reducing public sector pensions won’t work.

UBI replaces all welfare payments, including State Pensions.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

UBI replaces all welfare payments, including State Pensions.

I didn't say State pensions, though. I said public sector pensions. that's a contract.

Kirby

The simple answer to the question is, yes. And it's inevitable. It's not a question of if but rather when. Rising population and increased automation. There simply won't be enough jobs to go around. New job sectors will open up of course and the arts aren't going anywhere but still, it won't be enough. I know some people like to state decreasing birthrates but that isn't understanding the issue. Automation isn't going to go away and will just increase.

Every major nation in the developed world will end up with some form of UBI.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Geuze wrote: »

UBI replaces all welfare payments, including State Pensions.

That is an open question.

Geuze

The Swiss had a referendum on a UBI.

It seemed a tad high to me:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36454060


"The supporters camp had suggested a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs (£1,755; $2,555) for adults and also SFr625 for each child."

Ubbquittious

Geuze wrote: »

The Swiss had a referendum on a UBI.

It seemed a tad high to me:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36454060


"The supporters camp had suggested a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs (£1,755; $2,555) for adults and also SFr625 for each child."

In Switzerland that might buy you some stale bread and a cardboard box under a bush to live in

We already have it. Generations of people sit on their respective holes getting money for nothing.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

I tend to ignore these statements like "automation / robots will wipe out many jobs".

Complete rubbish.

The same fears were probably around as horse power was on the way out.

Life / society / economy is always changing, some jobs will decline, yes, and others will grow.

Anyways, if automation means workers can avoid mundane tasks, and switch to more interesting work, great.

Also, if more automation boosts productivity, great, as real wages will rise.

It's easy copy / headlines for the media: "automation/robots will wipe out jobs", when in reality, if you ask employers, they are crying out for skilled workers.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/05/tuesday-assorted-links-315.html

“There are about 465,000 open positions in cybersecurity nationwide as of May 2021, according to Cyber Seek — a tech job-tracking database from the U.S. Commerce Department — and the trade group CompTIA” Link here, though if you bring up skills mismatch you still get shouted down these days.

Strumms

Kirby wrote: »

The simple answer to the question is, yes. And it's inevitable. It's not a question of if but rather when. Rising population and increased automation. There simply won't be enough jobs to go around. New job sectors will open up of course and the arts aren't going anywhere but still, it won't be enough. I know some people like to state decreasing birthrates but that isn't understanding the issue. Automation isn't going to go away and will just increase.

Every major nation in the developed world will end up with some form of UBI.

Irish families are not having more kids, address why the population is growing at such an alarming rate to the detriment of Irish citizens to the point of this discussion becoming real and do something about it...the average number of children per Irish family is decreasing and has been for over a decade. Closer to 15 years actually according to CSO numbers... how is our population growing at such a steady rate ? I don’t think better healthcare and people living longer is the answer.

People have to provide automation, technology will become more prevalent... jobs in that sector will too.

We need to stop forcing population increases

Kirby

Kirby wrote: »

I know some people like to state decreasing birthrates but that isn't understanding the issue.

Strumms wrote: »

Irish families are not having more kids

Didn't take long. :P

Yes, Ireland has a relatively low birth rate like many developed countries. Because higher wealth equals better family planning. This is well known. But it isn't relevant.

It's really quite simple. Automation eliminates a large amount of low-skilled jobs. The people currently doing these are going to be out of work. Some of them will able to go to school or "upskill" as it is known. Most won't.

New industries will absolutely create a ton of new jobs....but they will be medium and high skilled ones. Not everyone has the desire or more importantly, the capability to perform every job under the sun.

Conservative estimates put 20% of low-skilled jobs at risk in the next ten years due to more automation. It increases exponentially as you go further out. What exactly do you think these people are going to do?

UBI is inevitable.

Strumms wrote: »

We need to stop forcing population increases

UBI raises wealth and decreases poverty. It will actually lead to less population, not more.

OMM 0000

Wanderer78 wrote: »

you actually cant study whatever you want on the dole... what if you are already struggling with complex psychological issues and disorders, potentially making these tasks virtually impossible?

Why do people do this?

Person: It's legal to walk down the street.
Respondent: Oh yeah? What if you're in prison for murder?

Person: It's safe to eat in McDonalds?
Respondent: Oh yeah? What if there's a mass shooter in there?

Person: You're can study whatever you want.
Respondent: Oh yeah? What if you're a disturbed mentally ill person?

All you're telling us is you have no interest in having a conversation or learning anything, and instead it's all about your ego and trying everything possible to hide the fact you made a mistake.

Wanderer78

OMM 0000 wrote:

All you're telling us is you have no interest in having a conversation or learning anything, and instead it's all about your ego and trying everything possible to hide the fact you made a mistake.

What mistake would that be? Not all minds are the same, we all do not have the abilities to learn anything we want, society needs a wide variety of skills. I've no idea where you're going with I don't want to learn, I learn everyday, like all other humans, I've spent a large proportion of my life in our educational system, what are you trying to say?

Geuze

Kirby wrote: »

UBI raises wealth and decreases poverty. It will actually lead to less population, not more.

Wealth = accumulated savings.

UBI involves a high tax rate on all direct income (e.g. 45%), so that may lead to people responding by doing less work, so producing less output.

We don't know for sure how people might respond.

So I can't see how it's possible to say that UBI increase wealth.



If UBI is set below the poverty threshold (2019 = 14,387, or 276 pw), then maybe poverty may not be affected?

Wanderer78

Geuze wrote: »

Wealth = accumulated savings.

UBI involves a high tax rate on all direct income (e.g. 45%), so that may lead to people responding by doing less work, so producing less output.

We don't know for sure how people might respond.

So I can't see how it's possible to say that UBI increase wealth.



If UBI is set below the poverty threshold (2019 = 14,387, or 276 pw), then maybe poverty may not be affected?

again, no it doesnt!

Geuze

Kirby wrote: »

UBI is inevitable.

UBI raises wealth and decreases poverty. It will actually lead to less population, not more.

Here is some information on the SJI proposal.

(NB: I do not endorse this, it's just FYI)

https://www.socialjustice.ie/content/publications/delivering-basic-income-pilot-videos-and-presentations


Eligibility and Structure (This is the SJI 2016 proposal)

Social Justice Ireland has costed many versions of a Universal Basic Income over the past 25 years. For example, in our 2016 conference paper entitled Costing a Basic Income for Ireland, we proposed a partial Universal Basic Income starting at €150 per week, that was fair, efficient and sustainable. This paper was an exercise in showing how a UBI could be paid for in Ireland within current structures. It was not a paper advocating at what rate a UBI should be set, however the following are some of the basic eligibility conditions and details of that version of a partial UBI, which may be instructive in any debate on its introduction:

• Payment would be conditional on residency within Ireland. In line with current welfare requirements, non-citizens must have lived here for a number of years before becoming entitled to a UBI.
• The level of the payment would be age-dependent.
• Payment would be constant and does not change upon the taking up of employment or the acquiring of other income.
• All income, aside from the UBI payment, would be subject to tax at one single rate of 40 per cent. All other income tax rates, as well as Employee PRSI and Universal Social Charge, are abolished. The rationale for using a tax rate of 40 per cent was to show what could be achieved in the prevailing context in 2016. Raising the necessary funds on the basis of a more progressive taxation model would be preferable.
• The Employer PRSI rate would increase to 13 per cent.
• There would be no tax credits or tax reliefs.
• The UBI would replace almost all core welfare payments, payments in respect of disability, illness and other additional needs would be retained.

https://www.socialjustice.ie/content/policy-issues/post-covid-19-basic-income-how-its-paid-and-how-get-there



So 150 UBI per week needs a 40% income tax rate.

Wanderer78

Geuze wrote: »

Here is some information on the SJI proposal.

(NB: I do not endorse this, it's just FYI)

https://www.socialjustice.ie/content/publications/delivering-basic-income-pilot-videos-and-presentations


Eligibility and Structure (This is the SJI 2016 proposal)

Social Justice Ireland has costed many versions of a Universal Basic Income over the past 25 years. For example, in our 2016 conference paper entitled Costing a Basic Income for Ireland, we proposed a partial Universal Basic Income starting at €150 per week, that was fair, efficient and sustainable. This paper was an exercise in showing how a UBI could be paid for in Ireland within current structures. It was not a paper advocating at what rate a UBI should be set, however the following are some of the basic eligibility conditions and details of that version of a partial UBI, which may be instructive in any debate on its introduction:

• Payment would be conditional on residency within Ireland. In line with current welfare requirements, non-citizens must have lived here for a number of years before becoming entitled to a UBI.
• The level of the payment would be age-dependent.
• Payment would be constant and does not change upon the taking up of employment or the acquiring of other income.
• All income, aside from the UBI payment, would be subject to tax at one single rate of 40 per cent. All other income tax rates, as well as Employee PRSI and Universal Social Charge, are abolished. The rationale for using a tax rate of 40 per cent was to show what could be achieved in the prevailing context in 2016. Raising the necessary funds on the basis of a more progressive taxation model would be preferable.
• The Employer PRSI rate would increase to 13 per cent.
• There would be no tax credits or tax reliefs.
• The UBI would replace almost all core welfare payments, payments in respect of disability, illness and other additional needs would be retained.

https://www.socialjustice.ie/content/policy-issues/post-covid-19-basic-income-how-its-paid-and-how-get-there



So 150 UBI per week needs a 40% income tax rate.

is this based on running a balanced budget?

Thelonious Monk

I think the current system of capitalism and jobs at all costs is something that has to change sooner or later, as everything is finite and we can't just keep expanding and producing stuff for the sake of it.
Yesterday they announced Domino's Pizza are to create 350 jobs in Ireland with expansion, are those jobs really necessary? Do we need more terrible pizza places?
I would hope that Governments worldwide might try and employ people to do more holistic jobs that help people and communities and the environment going forward, instead of just capitalism based on mining the Earth.
I'm not an economist but hopefully they come up with some way of balancing a UBI, keeping people fed and sheltered and relatively well off, and looking after the environment.

biddyearley

Nope.


I have no plans to work ever harder to subsidize a not-insubstantial portion of the population, including those who point-blank refuse to work, and those in receipt of a payment of having a "disability" or a subsidy for who knows what. Local social welfare officers have discretion to fork out money for home furnishings and such like.


Enough is enough. Teach kids the value of work, how our society should function. When hard questions are asked how some non-working people in receipt of state money can afford a smartphone and several trips to Spain each year, and their state payments are adjusted in light of this, then I might be interested in helping some more those who genuinely have a hard time.


This woke outlook is too much.

JimmyVik

Geuze wrote: »

Here is some information on the SJI proposal.

(NB: I do not endorse this, it's just FYI)

https://www.socialjustice.ie/content/publications/delivering-basic-income-pilot-videos-and-presentations


Eligibility and Structure (This is the SJI 2016 proposal)

Social Justice Ireland has costed many versions of a Universal Basic Income over the past 25 years. For example, in our 2016 conference paper entitled Costing a Basic Income for Ireland, we proposed a partial Universal Basic Income starting at €150 per week, that was fair, efficient and sustainable. This paper was an exercise in showing how a UBI could be paid for in Ireland within current structures. It was not a paper advocating at what rate a UBI should be set, however the following are some of the basic eligibility conditions and details of that version of a partial UBI, which may be instructive in any debate on its introduction:

• Payment would be conditional on residency within Ireland. In line with current welfare requirements, non-citizens must have lived here for a number of years before becoming entitled to a UBI.
• The level of the payment would be age-dependent.
• Payment would be constant and does not change upon the taking up of employment or the acquiring of other income.
• All income, aside from the UBI payment, would be subject to tax at one single rate of 40 per cent. All other income tax rates, as well as Employee PRSI and Universal Social Charge, are abolished. The rationale for using a tax rate of 40 per cent was to show what could be achieved in the prevailing context in 2016. Raising the necessary funds on the basis of a more progressive taxation model would be preferable.
• The Employer PRSI rate would increase to 13 per cent.
• There would be no tax credits or tax reliefs.
• The UBI would replace almost all core welfare payments, payments in respect of disability, illness and other additional needs would be retained.

https://www.socialjustice.ie/content/policy-issues/post-covid-19-basic-income-how-its-paid-and-how-get-there



So 150 UBI per week needs a 40% income tax rate.

Sounds to me like I will be paying more tax as will most people.



- 40% on everything.
- No tax credits and no reliefs

- Employers pay more tax too

Wanderer78

JimmyVik wrote: »

Sounds to me like I will be paying more tax as will most people.



- 40% on everything.
- No tax credits and no reliefs

- Employers pay more tax too

once again, what taxes were immediately increased, in order to facilitate pup payments?

Thelonious Monk

biddyearley wrote: »

Nope.


I have no plans to work ever harder to subsidize a not-insubstantial portion of the population, including those who point-blank refuse to work, and those in receipt of a payment of having a "disability" or a subsidy for who knows what. Local social welfare officers have discretion to fork out money for home furnishings and such like.


Enough is enough. Teach kids the value of work, how our society should function. When hard questions are asked how some non-working people in receipt of state money can afford a smartphone and several trips to Spain each year, and their state payments are adjusted in light of this, then I might be interested in helping some moer, those who genuinely have a hard time.


This woke outlook is too much.

Aren't you already being super woke by funding these layabouts' extravagant lifestyles by paying tax?
I think it's best to just accept that a few people are too lazy and undisciplined to ever be able to work full time.
It's a tiny figure anyway, before Covid we were basically at full employment.

JimmyVik

Wanderer78 wrote: »

once again, what taxes were immediately increased, in order to facilitate pup payments?

You really dont have a clue how finance works do you?
Did you expect the taxes to increase in advance or something.

We are just over one year into a pandemic. Taxes WILL increase. They are flying kites all over the place about it.



Ask us that after the next 3 budgets if taxes increased.

Wanderer78

JimmyVik wrote: »

You really dont have a clue how finance works do you?
Did you expect the taxes to increase in advance or something.

We are just over one year into a pandemic. Taxes WILL increase. They are flying kites all over the place about it.



Ask us that after the next 3 budgets if taxes increased.

do you? again, what taxes were used to pay pup payments?

JimmyVik

Wanderer78 wrote: »

do you? again, what taxes were used to pay pup payments?

Yesterday you claimed that people cant identify social welfare wasters.
Today you seem to be of the opinion that taxes are raised in advance of a pandemic.
Please, dont be pretending to know how the economy works, by asking others do they know. Look at your own posts first and think about what you are posting.

I see what you style is now. Throw out some ****e you read on a website once. And then pretend you are a genius. Then when someone points out to you a different point of you, you come back with a one line answer like above, with a stupid question on it.
I dont know why anyone engages with you at all tbh. You will post all day and all night til the other prosters just give up.
Well I give up. You are clearly a genius

Wanderer78

JimmyVik wrote: »

Yesterday you claimed that people cant identify social welfare wasters.
Today you seem to be of the opinion that taxes are raised in advance of a pandemic.
Please, dont be pretending to know how the economy works, by asking others do they know. Look at your own posts first and think about what you are posting.

jaysis, some gymnastics going on here!

where did i claim people cant identify whatever a welfare waster is, what even is that?

where have i said taxes are raised in advance, in order to fund public expenditure?