Government Benifit Cap

[Amp34]

They do have to pay council tax and that pay rate is now set by individual councils

They also have to pay for everything you and I do, however some rent places have certain Bills included.

So in a shared house that means about £100 a month in bills (max) so that leaves around £146 for under 25s and £210 a month for over 25s, which works out at £34 a week for under 25s and £48 a week for over 25s.

Not brilliant but liveable. If they get anything else then that's a bonus on that. Also considering bills (including council tax) are usually less in shared housing ( at least the average monthly extra in shared housing I looked at was around £60 a month).

Aside from that a room in shared housing would be around £400-600 a month in central London. That's about at max £810 a month, which is £187 a week. Anyone getting near £350 a week, well...

 

[estebanrey]

Saying UK tax isn't high because it's lower than other European neighbors is pretty meaningless considering how high tax rates are in Europe. Europe is a very small sample size, how about comparing tax levels to other countries in the world like the USA where some states have no VAT or state income tax?

But in return they have City and State Taxes.

The one income tax America does have that is pretty right wing is Social Security, (it may have changed since I last checked but..) you only pay up to a certain amount like $100k at which point you pay no more. So someone on $50k is paying far more in social security taxes than someone on $1 million does as a proportion of their total wage.

 

[elmarko]

Saying UK tax isn't high because it's lower than other European neighbors is pretty meaningless considering how high tax rates are in Europe. Europe is a very small sample size, how about comparing tax levels to other countries in the world like the USA where some states have no VAT or state income tax?

Along with massively higher crime, significantly higher poverty, increase infant mortality rate, higher murder rates, rape rates, death from preventable diseases, homelessness, higher income inequality, higher air pollution, lower "quality of life", rate lower on the "freedom index" (Which rates freedom of press etc) & swathes of untreated mental illnesses - with a final dash of religious fundamentalism, homophobia & bigotry (at a much wider scale than the UK).

Yup, let's compare ourselves against that. (if you are wondered what the point is, you need to compare to cultures with closer social cohesion levels, not a developing country)

The data suggests that high taxes results in the opposite to the above (evidence to the contrary would be welcomed)

 

[Neil79]

Aside from that a room in shared housing would be around £400-600 a month in central London. That's about at max £810 a month, which is £187 a week. Anyone getting near £350 a week, well...

In this area upto £400 a month is the going rate for a single bedroom/studio flat. Yes there are more expensive but they are ripping people off

So

ESA - £98 a week
Housing Benefit - £100 a week ( if it's a £400 rental )

So far £198 ( Remember £100 of that goes to the landlord )

However if you want to factor in council tax which some now have to pay part of, that totals depending on area to £72 a week or just over. This is well below the cap of £350.

I'd love to see the Rent of people getting £350 or what style of flat they live in, although they don't actually get £350 to play with.

 

[Amp34]

The NMW for a start should apply to all workers & should be significantly higher - it's nowhere near a living wage.

The point about social mobility is that the government should support people who are trying to move to different parts of the UK to find work, currently it doesn't.

But even taking that into account we still have a jobs deficit.

I had to move myself for work, but not everybody has the opportunity, the job offer, the income or the savings/support to move (it wasn't cheap).

I can understand wanting to get people into productive work - really.. I really can - but then let's have a frank & honest evidence based discussion on the barriers to work & reasons behind long term unemployment (outside of simply calling them lazy & suggesting punitive measures which will most likely cost more in the long-term due to reduced social cohesion or increased crime).

Currently we get right wing ideological sound-bites to support changes to our welfare state - I'm sorry but that's not good enough - I want to see some evidence to back these assertions up, more so when they are likely to cause the opposite of the desired intention (if you take into account various studies on human behaviour).

Aside from the arguments about NMW increasing inflation, NMW does apply to all workers over the age of 18, the point being those under 18 are supposed to have less financial liabilities, although I don't necessarily agree with that at all!

You mention it not being cheap to move but do you have family, mortgage, car etc? Thousands/hundreds of thousands of ex students move each year to other areas of the country, a significant portion of those without jobs before they move. The point being a single long term unemployed person is unlikely to have a mortgage, car and other financial constraints, much like a student after university. It's a different situation. If hundreds of thousands of students can do it why not unemployed people? Especially if we can persuade them with a bit of effort they can have a better life, which is what a lot of the charities dealing with long term unemployed are trying to do.

I'm certainly not suggesting punitive measures, what I have been suggesting all along is this cap designed as a cap for those using disproportionate resources and as stated the cap doesn't affect many people. I don't think many begrudge giving people a couple of hundred pound a month and a free room while they are unemployed, however many people begrudge the idea of the long term unemployed living in potentially nice flats/houses in central London, all paid for by people who have to commute an hour plus a day, potentially living in a shared house or with parents, to work, right beside where these people are living, because they can't afford a even a room in that area.

Its all very well stating sound bites from the "left" but you still have to answer the questions.

From time to time all companies need to look at their finances, decide they need to make cuts and cut to reduce overheads, government is no different and the cuts do seem small when taken individually, however when added together with cuts in military, research funding and other locations you get big savings, this specific cap hardly affects anyone, especially compared to some of the other cuts that have affected more (redundancies and base closures due to military cuts, let alone the knock on to British business that supplied those soldiers and bases).

Edit: that's aside from the stupid price of housing, which is a whole bother discussion. Just slow the bubble to bursts and reduce prices. It's all very well stating we should build more houses but we all know they will be built in the south, I'm sorry but I'm going to go all NIMBY but the south east is one of the top 3 densely populated areas in the world already and I've seem thousands of houses built round my childhood town in the last 20 years, places I used to walk in the countryside now a sprawl of ugly cramped houses, that's aside from the other 20000 houses they want to build on the other side of town, which currently has a few small villages and farmhouses... Anyway... Rant over...

 

[Mr Jack]

Saying UK tax isn't high because it's lower than other European neighbors is pretty meaningless considering how high tax rates are in Europe. Europe is a very small sample size, how about comparing tax levels to other countries in the world like the USA where some states have no VAT or state income tax?

The US gets to pay over twice as much for healthcare yet fail to provide universal healthcare and deliver worse outcomes for most people. I wouldn't choose that model in a million years. The higher tax EU countries score better than the US on almost every metric of social well-being that's why they're a good comparison.

If you have a salary of say £25k, you pay £5068.5 income tax, £1-2k council tax, and say an average of 15% vat on the remainder, that's nearly 40% tax! That's not even taking into account other special taxes, like insurance tax and stamp duty.

Gosh? Really? Because I'm totally unaware of tax levels in this country.

We get universal healthcare free at the point of use; a military capable of playing on the world stage; universal education; a safety net that will catch us if we fall; policing and a legal system that protect us from the criminals of this world; roads; rubbish collection; libraries; democracy; social care for elderly; funded research and so on and so forth. The state, funded from taxation, provides an enormous amount for us; this is a wonderful thing. We have it better than almost anyone who has ever lived in any country ever because of the state taxation supports.

Moreover, the notion of income before taxation is a complete fiction. You are only able to earn what you earn because you live in a country with the things taxation provides. The education you received, and that your co-workers received; the roads that your employers supply chains rely on; the healthcare that keeps workers able to work and contribute; the state-supported child-care that frees people to work and so on. No man is an island; and never is this more true than when discussing taxation.

 

[willhub]

I work my ass off and if I'm lucky I'll get £330 in a single week take home, and that's if I work 7 days a week and do at least 10 hours double time overtime.

 

[Stretch]

Gosh? Really? Because I'm totally unaware of tax levels in this country.

We get universal healthcare free at the point of use; a military capable of playing on the world stage; universal education; a safety net that will catch us if we fall; policing and a legal system that protect us from the criminals of this world; roads; rubbish collection; libraries; democracy; social care for elderly; funded research and so on and so forth. The state, funded from taxation, provides an enormous amount for us; this is a wonderful thing. We have it better than almost anyone who has ever lived in any country ever because of the state taxation supports.

Moreover, the notion of income before taxation is a complete fiction. You are only able to earn what you earn because you live in a country with the things taxation provides. The education you received, and that your co-workers received; the roads that your employers supply chains rely on; the healthcare that keeps workers able to work and contribute; the state-supported child-care that frees people to work and so on. No man is an island; and never is this more true than when discussing taxation.

But if that all works so marvellously well, how come some contribute so little?

 

[estebanrey]

Aside from the arguments about NMW increasing inflation, NMW does apply to all workers over the age of 18, the point being those under 18 are supposed to have less financial liabilities, although I don't necessarily agree with that at all!

Whilst NMW 'applies' to anyone 18 or over, it's a bit less than the proper NMW which you can't get until 21...

Over the course of a year and based on a full time job that's over £2,500 difference.

 

[Mr Jack]

But if that all works so marvellously well, how come some contribute so little?

It's true the rich do contribute remarkably little; I think we should probably do something about that. What do you propose?

 

[Amp34]

Whilst NMW 'applies' to anyone 18 or over, it's a bit less than the proper NMW which you can't get until 21...

Over the course of a year and based on a full time job that's over £2,500 difference.

It's still NMW. As I already pointed out I agree with you, why should it just be an arbitrary age?

On the other hand that had nothing to do with the original point I was making, which was that there are tens/hundreds of thousands of "foreigners" (mostly Eastern European or Australian/nz) working in bars and restaurants. The question is why do they have jobs if there are none, more specifically why are almost all bar workers and waiters/waitresses in London people from other countries, why are there no Brits being employed in these jobs? Are they not applying? Are they not being picked for some reason?

 

[cymatty]

It's true the rich do contribute remarkably little; I think we should probably do something about that. What do you propose?

Really?

http://blog.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/wp-content/visualisations/breakdownchart.htm

http://www.improving-visualisation.org/vis/id=307

 

[estebanrey]

Really?

http://blog.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/wp-content/visualisations/breakdownchart.htm

http://www.improving-visualisation.org/vis/id=307

That's chart is 4 years out of date. Not that I suspect it's changed that much mind.

However, a counter to that chart is to say the cause is driven by the disparity in wages. In other words, the people at the top are on so much more money than the bottom their tax give by definition will always dominate the total. It doesn't necessarily show that the rich are being unfairly taxed or that they are paying more of their total income than those at the bottom.

 

[cymatty]

That's chart is 4 years out of date. Not that I suspect it's changed that much mind.

With the recent rises in personal allowance if anything the poorest will pay even less, if anything.

 

[estebanrey]

With the recent rises in personal allowance if anything the poorest will pay even less, if anything.

Which is balanced by the 5% cut in the top rate of income tax.

 

[cymatty]

Which is balanced by the 5% cut in the top rate of income tax.

I think this chart was before the 50p rate was introduced.

However, a counter to that chart is to say the cause is driven by the disparity in wages. In other words, the people at the top are on so much more money than the bottom their tax give by definition will always dominate the total. It doesn't necessarily show that the rich are being unfairly taxed or that they are paying more of their total income than those at the bottom.

Agreed, but the other link I posted shows that as your income rises (to a point) you have more taken off you as a %.

 

[Mucky_Pup]

It's still NMW. As I already pointed out I agree with you, why should it just be an arbitrary age?

On the other hand that had nothing to do with the original point I was making, which was that there are tens/hundreds of thousands of "foreigners" (mostly Eastern European or Australian/nz) working in bars and restaurants. The question is why do they have jobs if there are none, more specifically why are almost all bar workers and waiters/waitresses in London people from other countries, why are there no Brits being employed in these jobs? Are they not applying? Are they not being picked for some reason?

Because a lot of people in this country think NMW jobs are beneath them for some obscure reason, like they're better than that, when they're really not. I'd say a lot of them also can't (see: choose not to/won't) sustain their lifestyles on NMW in London, and are too uptight to make sacrifices in their lives, i.e. like what a lot people do; live in larger numbers in small accomodation to cut down costs, not go out and ***** 60% of their net pay in nightclubs on cocktails at the weekend, not have an iphone 5 etc. etc.

One argument against raising the NMW I would say, is the current state low skilled employment is in, how's it going to be when Boris and all his mates from every back water town from here to the Urals, learn that instead of getting £6.30 an hour for collecting glasses in a pub, or slinging a mop around a **** soaked pub floor they're legally entitled to £8.50, because we've went and upped the NMW and there's no way to stop them as they have free roam to work here, even if it is low skilled jobs, which any natural citizen could be doing? Reform is needed of the immigration and working policy in this country before the working attitudes of British citizens is going to change, we can't sustain it. But it would be hard, because even if you say that people can't come here to work low skilled jobs, there's going to be a period, where the British people won't want to work the low skilled jobs, so for that you eitehr need reduction of benefits, to get them to do the jobs, or incentives which make them want to do the jobs. Think I could just rock up to Australia or the US and say "alright mate, I'm here to get a job as a... (insert low skilled job of your choosing)" No, I'd have a visa denial waved in my face as fast as anything.

 

[The_Abyss]

Which is balanced by the 5% cut in the top rate of income tax.

Not really. That's yet to be proven, as putting the higher rate tax rate from 40% to 50% actually resulted in around £0.5 billion less tax being collected.

Dropping the rate from 50% to 45% could easily yield more tax from those individuals, not counting those that they employ or who support them.

 

[estebanrey]

The funny thing about Labour bringing in the NMW is they now admit they later supported the immigration policy they did because they were told it would "drive down labour costs" (From John Reid's own mouth on Sunday Politics).

So did they want people at the bottom to earn a decent wage or not?

 

[Mr Jack]

Not really. That's yet to be proven, as putting the higher rate tax rate from 40% to 50% actually resulted in around £0.5 billion less tax being collected.

This is the kind of true but utterly misleading fact that the ConDems' love. This is what happened: Labour introduced the 50p tax, lots of people shuffled their income to move their income into the 40p bracket before it was introduced, pushing the year before introduction up and the year after down. The ConDems then dropped the tax rate before any meaningful figures could be produced, this allowed people to then push income into the next year and avoid the 50p tax rate again.

To get any useful figures you'd need to have the tax rate in place for at least three full tax years.