Radical benefits shake-up

arknor · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:19

It's almost as if the government wants people to be angry at the benefit "scroungers" rather than people realising the minimum wage is **** and not good enough.

I suspect the same people who decide and debate the minimum wage are the same people who either would be effected by the rise or there party backers would be and so wouldn't be very happy.

xibinim said:
Any one have more detail on 'would save £1.8billion'?.

we would probably generate over 1.8billion if corporation tax was raised by 0.01% or people paid what they should be doing and not having special deals negotiated
The government wants to find money from the poor as usual "we are all in this together" my bum...

antijoke · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:24

spankingtexan said:
And that is why salary must rise, Rent and council tax levels are killing all, this race to the bottom is absurd, I'm amazed so many people fall for it.

This is so true, the cost of these two things alone is absurd. I'm not saying wages should rise BTW.

And Glaucus has a point, we need to streamline the way this country operates first, and this should have been done way before any changes to things like benefit came into force.

doofer · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:25

mmj_uk · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:26

arknor said:
It's almost as if the government wants people to be angry at the benefit "scroungers" rather than people realising the minimum wage is **** and not good enough.

It was the same when they played private sector against public sector, race to the gutter and the working class fall for it every time.

All hitting the poorest people is going to do is increase crime/homelessness & slow the economy, it's almost like our government want to steadily destroy our way of living.

platypus · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:27

arknor said:
It's almost as if the government wants people to be angry at the benefit "scroungers" rather than people realising the minimum wage is **** and not good enough.

I suspect the same people who decide and debate the minimum wage are the same people who either would be effected by the rise or there party backers would be and so wouldn't be very happy.

we would probably generate over 1.8billion if corporation tax was raised by 0.01% or people paid what they should be doing and not having special deals negotiated
The government wants to find money from the poor as usual "we are all in this together" my bum...

A flat rate tax would probably raise more than enough money in addition to that, but who in Government is going to risk a shakeup like that?

Raising the minimum wage would help, but to what extent? You can't keep raising it (outside inflation).

elmarko · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:28

It's amazing the difference in government focus in closing down tax avoidance schemes or to catch organisations for tax evasion compared to benefit fraud (when you compare the net cost of both).

Hell, even errors made by the benefits department cost us more than benefit fraud.

I'm just going to watch from outside & laugh as the system falls apart, the greed at the top & unwillingness to appreciate that for the system to continue demand needs to exist (when they are constantly further diminishing demand in the local economy by attacking workers wages).

These people just think "somebody else will sort it out", or "customers will come from somewhere" - well sadly, once the working classes have nothing left - no disposable income, let's see what happens to the business world.

They are essentially poisoning their own roots to increase the short term yield, at the detriment to society, the workers & themselves in the long term.

This is why I'd argue capitalism is flawed, it's it's own worst enemy - a victim of it's own success, unable to see the problem with sawing off the branch on which it sits, a corporation has no concern for the systemic sustainability - it's impossible to be competitive in the business world if they did (not to mention the externalisation of countless negative consequences of business transactions/decisions).

RDM · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:30

elmarko said:
It's amazing the difference in government focus in closing down tax avoidance schemes or to catch organisations for tax evasion compared to benefit fraud (when you compare the net cost of both).

Hell, even errors made by the benefits department cost us more than benefit fraud.

Probably because one is easier to do than the other.

Ceryndrion · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:32

the thing that gets me the most, is that people are convinced that "on benefits" automatically means "lazy unemployed", even the BBC's recent program about it, stated that over £40bn a year is spent on the unemployed, when it isn't anywhere near that, the welfare bill is about that, but not the cost of the unemployed.

The elderly count for the largest proportion of the welfare bill, infact according to a report released not too long ago by my local council, the elderly cost 32.5%, Family benefits 36.9%, Housing 17.8%, Disability 14.1%, and the unemployed at the bottom with only 4.6% of the total cost of welfare.

So realistically speaking, its still the old folk that are the real problem.. If people just didn't live so damn long, we'd not have a problem

arknor · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:32

platypus said:
A flat rate tax would probably raise more than enough money in addition to that, but who in Government is going to risk a shakeup like that?

Raising the minimum wage would help, but to what extent? You can't keep raising it (outside inflation).

no one is saying raise it by 10% in a day but the gap is clearly growing wider and wider and it's making more and more people eligible for working tax credits and housing benefit.

it's costing the government the billions they keep claiming they need to save.

the government should stop subsidising companies that can easily afford a small hit

spankingtexan · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:32

MikeTheNative said:
Yes I am living at home, but it is depressing that I'm working 40 hours a week and some lazy t**t could be getting almost double the amount of money I do for just turning up to the job centre once every two weeks.

Majority of claimants aren't lazy t**ts. Most of the benefit is paid directly to the landlord and council. Typical jobseeker will receive less than £4500 a year and out of that they are now eligible to pay some of the council tax, Gas, Electric, food, Water, clothing, not to mention bus fares to travel to job interviews, toiletries and cleaning materials, unforeseen emergencies such as their cooker might go on the blink, or they have to phone round for jobs, yet people think they're on to a good thing then on top of all that I suppose they may also feel a little depressed when they get turned down for that job again and get called a scrounger by some mindless people who don't really have a clue.

elmarko · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:37

RDM said:
Probably because one is easier to do than the other.

Indeed, benefit fraud is incredibly difficult to detect & has a very small return on a one to one basis.

arknor said:
the government should stop subsidising companies that can easily afford a small hit

Corporate welfare is totally fine remember..., just welfare to the poor is bad.

Welfare to the rich (via tax cuts, tax breaks & let off's or government subsidy) is fine to most of the population.

arknor · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:39

spankingtexan said:
Majority of claimants aren't lazy t**ts. Most of the benefit is paid directly to the landlord and council.

a single person gets directly into there hands around £56-72 a week which must pay all there bills , food , clothing etc

Age Weekly amount
16 to 24 £56.80
25 or over £71.70

I'm sure after working you have much more spare money than that.
if not hit up the working tax credits and housing benefit website and see if you are eligible

so after rent and council tax how much money do you have? over 71 a week?
if your getting anywhere near that you are clearly living in a place you can't afford to...

In primark the other day I bought.

2 pairs of jeans
joggy bottoms
hoody
lightweight jacket for the summer.
double fitting sheet

£50 gone
I got some nike trainers in sports direct.
£33

I could never survive on JSA anyone who thinks they are better off not working are clearly insane

MikeTheNative · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:41

spankingtexan said:
Majority of claimants aren't lazy t**ts. Most of the benefit is paid directly to the landlord and council.

I am not saying that the majority is, just a few, I was unemployed for a few months and at the Job centre you could clearly tell that there was a few that had no interest what so ever and just wanted to sign on and get their money. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't money for rent given to the tenants (to pay themselves) not direct to the landlords unless permission is given by the tenant to pay the estate agent directly.

realBabelfish · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:44

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...50-million-tax-on-rental-incomes-8315885.html

this is an interesting development. i wonder why nothing is being done about this?

seems many rip-off landlords arent even paying tax!

realBabelfish · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:45

arknor said:
"we are all in this together" my bum...

haha

your bum is that big?

spankingtexan · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:48

arknor said:
a single person gets directly into there hands around £56-72 a week which must pay all there bills , food , clothing etc

I'm sure after working you have much more spare money than that.
if not hit up the working tax credits and housing benefit website and see if you are eligible

so after rent and council tax how much money do you have? over 71 a week?
if your getting anywhere near that you are clearly living in a place you can't afford to...

In primark the other day I bought.

£50 gone
I got some nike trainers in sports direct.
£33

I could never survive on JSA anyone who thinks they are better off not working are clearly insane

Absolutely, I just edited my last post to go into this a little more.

arknor · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:50

MikeTheNative said:
. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't money for rent given to the tenants (to pay themselves) not direct to the landlords unless permission is given by the tenant to pay the estate agent directly.

it was trialed in some areas.
people spent the money.
the idea was scrapped.

Unless something has changed which I doubt

pioneer2000 · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:50

They should smooth the playing field so that anyone earning over say 200k p/a gets capped and anything over that gets paid to people earning under say 20k.

Dr Jack · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:51

android guy said:
Lets get our own house in order before we even think about foreign aid.

When even our frickin' military is calling for the foreign aid budget not to be cut you have to wonder how that makes sense. Even if you ignore the moral imperative for a staggeringly rich country like ours to give a tiny amount to help out, our aid budget makes sense as a means to ensure stability that allows our companies to trade and avoids costly military projects; as a means to boost our reputation worldwide; as a means to grow export markets; and as a means to exert soft power the world over.

arknor · 16 Jul 2013 at 13:52

pioneer2000 said:
They should smooth the playing field so that anyone earning over say 200k p/a gets capped and anything over that gets paid to people earning under say 20k.

it's not such a bad idea in theory but in practice I don't think it could work.

It might however open up more jobs because people would work to the cap most likely.

but then would the company hire another guy in a high position? or would they lower the actual wage and get around it with bonuses and back handers....... :rolleyes: