More than half of homes take more than they contribute

[danielanthony]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10929370/More-than-half-of-homes-take-more-than-they-contribute.html

Some 52 per cent of households, or 13.8 million families, received more in benefits and public services than they contributed in taxes last year, according to the Office for National Statistics.
In 1977, just 40 per cent of households took more than they contributed, rising to 44 per cent in 2000.

I always thought that the majority supported the minority who couldn't afford to live reasonably, due to being a civilised society. But what happens when the majority become those who can't support themselves? Is it right or fair to put an increasing burden on the now minority in society who make a positive contribution to the countries bank balance? Additionally, if this trend continues, is it a good idea for the country to become more and more dependant on an increasingly small pool of tax payers?

These numbers don't just relate to welfare payments, the calculation is done on amount of public services used also. The poorest households also make most use of the NHS, for example.

 

[LOAM]

Well I guess that explains the deficit

 

[jcr]

Seems like a sustainable model!

 

[mattyg]

Why should the rich pay for the LAZY poor. Not the poor, The LAZY poor.

Its seems that its easier to pick on the rich than make the LAZY poor suffer.

If the unemployed (those on benefits) can afford to go down the pub and buy a pint we are paying them too much. We should NOT be paying them a living it should only be enough to just get by.

In areas were there is massive unemployment then local councils need to step up and create work whilst on benefits.

 

[DXP55]

As one woman scrounger said "Can't Government print more money"

Problem solved

Dave

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Woah. I'm in a minority. Should I be angry, or something?

 

[MikeTheNative]

Why should the rich pay for the LAZY poor. Not the poor, The LAZY poor.

Its seems that its easier to pick on the rich than make the LAZY poor suffer.

The biggest problem is how do you change the laws to punish the lazy poor but not affect the ones who really need the help.

 

[mattyg]

Rather than giving the benefits in cash give them credits to spend on a card.

 

[mattyg]

The biggest problem is how do you change the laws to punish the lazy poor but not affect the ones who really need the help.

Give them jobs.. Make them work for their "benefit".

I bet there are not many on JSA or IS that can't work

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Rather than giving the benefits in cash give them credits to spend on a card.

We used to have a system like that. Landlords were paid directly by the govt. and the tenants given food stamps and similar "tokens" so they could only spend it on necessities and not booze/drugs/fags.

There was uproar about the Big Bother-ishness of it and how it demeaned the tenants by not letting them have the responsibility for their own money so when they eventually did earn their own they didn't know what to do blah blah.

 

[MatsyLR]

Rather than giving the benefits in cash give them credits to spend on a card.

Will never happen.
Would work (as long as the credits are locked to specific purchases like essentials) but they won't implement it.

 

[danielanthony]

Unemployment benefit is one of the smallest benefits claimed, although, single parents claim Income Support rather than JSA so are not included in the unemployment statistics.

The main problem is that people aren't paid enough when they DO have a job to get them off income related benefits - Working Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits being the worst offenders.

Surely the government should stop subsidising employers by effectively topping up salaries using tax credits? A higher national minimum wage would go some way towards this, more akin to the living wage that's been proposed.

 

[Calabi]

Rather than giving the benefits in cash give them credits to spend on a card.

Give them jobs.. Make them work for their "benefit".

I bet there are not many on JSA or IS that can't work

How would these decrease the deficit and increase the tax that is taken?

Your idea would just create an in bedded poor that is even more dependent, that drags the whole economy down even more.

 

[Redz]

Unemployment benefit is one of the smallest benefits claimed, although, single parents claim Income Support rather than JSA so are not included in the unemployment statistics.

The main problem is that people aren't paid enough when they DO have a job to get them off income related benefits - Working Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits being the worst offenders.

Surely the government should stop subsidising employers by effectively topping up salaries using tax credits? A higher national minimum wage would go some way towards this, more akin to the living wage that's been proposed.

Don't let little things like facts get in the way of vilifying people on JSA.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Raising the minimum wage isn't a free lunch. Wages are often by far the biggest expense that employers have, so increasing that will increase the price of bread, possibly nullifying the effects of the increase.

 

[Nix]

1. This explains quite easily where a fiscal deficit comes from.

2. It's not an entirely shocking statistic when we remember that the majority of wealth is held by the very few. This isn't an indictment against the welfare state, it's pointing out what we already know: the monetary system is broke.

 

[Fubsy]

Raising the minimum wage isn't a free lunch. Wages are often by far the biggest expense that employers have, so increasing that will increase the price of bread, possibly nullifying the effects of the increase.

But tax payers are paying that anyway in the form of in work benefits.

 

[balky12]

Benefits should be capped per household to minimum wage.

Therefore one household can not earn more than someone who is on minimum wage. By setting a minimum wage the Government is effectively saying this is the minimum someone can live off.

Other option is to give everyone the same monthly benefit. Say £1000 a month. Want to sit at home and do f all with yourself and live off a £1000 a month, good for you. Want to go to work and bring in more money, excellent. But everyone has the same as everyone else. (if you have an illness / condition that requires care this is a totally different situation that will obviously be assessed and benefits given accordingly)

Both will never happen anyways.

 

[Nix]

The minimum wage isn't the same thing as a living wage. If that were to happen, the minimum wage would have to be increased to the same value as the living wage which IIRC is something like 14.5k.

I still think there's a strong case for a reducing house-prices and its associated deflation. The freedom of social mobility is worth the offset in my opinion.

 

[MikeTheNative]

Benefits should be capped per household to minimum wage.

Therefore one household can not earn more than someone who is on minimum wage. By setting a minimum wage the Government is effectively saying this is the minimum someone can live off.

Other option is to give everyone the same monthly benefit. Say £1000 a month. Want to sit at home and do f all with yourself and live off a £1000 a month, good for you. Want to go to work and bring in more money, excellent. But everyone has the same as everyone else. (if you have an illness / condition that requires care this is a totally different situation that will obviously be assessed and benefits given accordingly)

Both will never happen anyways.

The problem with that though is what if a couple or single parent has more children then they can afford to support on a minimum wage. I've been brought up with the notion, only have as many children as you can afford. But simply too many people are having too many children that they can't afford to keep.