On 18/05/2018 15:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/05/18 13:46, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2018 12:56, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/18 23:52, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2018 19:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/18 17:48, MrCheerful wrote:

It is annoying that everybody's money is thrown in the wrong
direction all the time.

The money comes from a minority. I repeat my post of 21:52 on the
14th.

[quote]
This article is a few years old:-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-get-back.html


It is estimated that 60% of households are net beneficiaries of the
tax system, getting back more in benefits than they contribute. The
neutral point is a gross income of between £35,000 and £38,000.

There's a heck of a lot of necessary detail which is being left out
there because it makes the argument far less convincing when included.

It boils down to dependent children. The more of them a family has,
the more they are in debit to the Exchequer (not only for CHB and
tax credits, but also for primary and secondary education).

Families with fewer children will meet their "breal-even" point at a
lower level of gross income, and families with no dependent children
at all (eg, before any arrive or after they have flown the coop) at
a lower level of gross income still.

Yes, it is the nature of populations that there will be spread around
an average.

On the other hand, there's an argument that bringing up children
(the better-socialised the ... er ... better) is of advantage to
society in the mid-term. We will all need our penions paid for a few
more years yet, we hope.

So, many motorists are paying their vehicle taxes with one hand
what they receive from taxpayers with the other. If I am a
beneficiary, then by cycling I am doing taxpayers a favour. If I am
a taxpayer then by cycling I am not giving away as much to a bunch
of freeloaders.
[Unquote]

It's plainly not true, but it must be of comfort to cyclists with
small brains.

£6bn in - ved
£28bn in - fuel duty
£30bn out - tax credits
£56bn out - welfare

You have figures that allow a different conclusion?

Show how the payments in are exclusively - or even nearly so - made by
the people receiving the payments out.

Nobody said anything about exclusivity. You tell me I am wrong and you
insult me, yet you cannot show where I am wrong.

Your "argument" was that car-owners (whom you choose to call "motorists"
as though it were still 1910) are subsidised.

You have not even begun to prove it.

And you shan't be able to do so.