More than half of homes take more than they contribute

[413x]

are you serious? job seekers allowance is only around 6b... disability allowance is only supposed to be around 1% fraud

most of the money going to scroungers will be single mothers with children that don't have to work even if the child has a full time nursery placement etc

not people on JSA

biggest problem is pensions but we are bringing in immigrants to pay for our old folk, then we can bring in more immigrants to pay for these immigrants pensions and the cycle continues forever.

What I meant was the majority of working people would probably prefer it if non work related benefits were paid by stamps in a moral sense. As it makes the news. And I also didn't mean just jsa. And yes I know you don't get much on jsa. But i thought these differentiations were going/gone into universal credit

 

[Spit]

Mmm, 52% is a large portion of the electorate to keep happy

 

[scorza]

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.

All the more reason to try and reduce income inequality in this country imo.

 

[Caged]

I honestly can't blame people for not fighting over a job on a zero-hours contract and then having to actually get themselves to work at an irregular time each day only to be sent home after earning themselves two hours of minimum wage. If they've worked out they can be comfortable living off the state with the advantages that come with not needing to do the daily grind then maybe they're the truly enlightened ones.

And for the people who send out hundreds of applications a month for jobs stacking shelves, cleaning toilets, sweeping roads without hearing anything back? I'm not going to begrudge them a few beers at the end of the week, that must be soul-destroying.

 

[Tunney]

No, but in future generations this minority will get larger and larger unless it does get stopped. As already stated we already have a minority supporting the majority, we can't afford for this to get bigger otherwise severe consequences will come and quickly. (e.g. massive cut in benefits for all)

I have no issue with the state helping hard working families either, or people that are unfortunate and need the help (disabilities/ elderly/ etc.).

Read the article. The reason for the swing is our ageing population and the recent economic downturn. Exactly the people who you have "no issue" with the state helping.

Attacking the long-term unemployed is not going to solve the problem. Only economic growth will do that.

 

[wordy]

These threads

Always end up going the same direction...down the ****ter.

You know what, that's the 1st thing I thought when I started reading the thread. But after finishing it there are actually some really good posts in here, most of the people aren't blaming the poor people and have read what's been posted.

 

[Mucky_Pup]

That vast majority of rich people do just about anything to avoid paying proper taxation, they have that already. If they'd stop shipping all the money abroad and god knows what I might say it was a bit unfair, hell if they played fair we could afford to reduce taxation on the wealthy.

But if isn't just the rich avoiding paying their dues, it's the greedy shareholders in big business who are largely responsible for this great imbalance.

"proper taxation" and " their dues" are pretty subjective views though, I don't see how you can label the figure which HMRC will plonk down in front of a person and expect them to blindly pay as "proper" or "due", but if they chose to use the letter of the law to argue the case that; "actually, I shouldn't have to pay that much" as somehow "improper" or "unjust"? If I could get away legally with paying less tax, I would, and I'm not exactly rich.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

You know people work and still have to claim benefits right?

Or is this going to turn into another moronic witch hunt of DEM BENEFITZZZZZ!!!1111 again....

They say 50% of households didn't contribute more than they took, well 50% of people are not on JSA.... the figure is something like 5-6% or something right now.

If that....

Yes the rich pay more tax, but guess what. If you didn't have a bunch of people to work for you for a crappy wage your company wouldn't run or exist either. Society is basically a giant pyramid selling scheme, you have people at the bottom to prop up those at the top. There is no top without the bottom, just realise they pay low wages and they have to pay tax which then goes back to the bottom to prop it up because of low wages. In turn the system doesn't then collapse in on itself and people at the bottom can still have access to necessities such as healthcare / education.

ITT I just see a bunch of idiots on the witch hunt again, Yawn such old news now....stop being so bitter and twisted because you hate your life and are looking for anything negative to vent.

Although I do agree if you have a lot of people who took more than they put in, then yes that is unsustainable and it's a fine balance to be kept. The government have been cutting benefits HEAVILY as well, people seem to forget this. They kicked a tonne of people off disability benefit using ATOS, they also cut housing benefit.

 

[balky12]

stop being so bitter and twisted because you hate your life and are looking for anything negative to vent.

Yep. People who disagree with things in life do so because they hate their own life.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Yep. People who disagree with things in life do so because they hate their own life.

Generally to be honest it's true (Not disagreeing part but it's the way people grab their pitch forks every time), if you sit down to PURPOSELY get riled up at a sensationalized program like benefits street you are an idiot.

I think to myself, why would I sit down to get ****ed off at something and ruin my day unless I was just bitter and negative and attracted to that kind of energy.

Edit: Bearing in mind though, this thread is not what I'm specifically referring too, It was a few weeks back the benefits street thread and some of posts just made me slap my forehead.
I'm also in agreement with sorting out the benefits system and also ensuring people who can work do find it, but throwing around wild anecdotal stories of a woman with 30 kids claiming child benefit does NOT represent the majority of people on them.

I've been one to suggest people work for their benefits, you pay them minimum wage. So housing benefit + JSA probably something like a 20hour work week. Send them to work for 20hours a week to earn their benefits. Job done, obviously easier said than done because of the effort it would require to do that.

Benefits should be capped per household to minimum wage.

I also agree with that, people who can't afford kids should definitely not be having them. Or maybe cap child benefit to 1-2 children.

 

[balky12]

Generally to be honest it's true, if you sit down to PURPOSELY get riled up at a sensationalised program like benefits street you are an idiot.

I think to myself, why would I sit down to get ****ed off at something and ruin my day unless I was just bitter and negative and attracted to that kind of energy.

I would go one further and say if you watch most T.V these days you are an idiot. Benefits street / big brother / x factor / Britains got talent / Only way is Essex / Geordie shore / Made in Chelsea. Gah. If you aren't an idiot, you soon will be.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

I would go one further and say if you watch most T.V these days you are an idiot. Benefits street / big brother / x factor / Britains got talent / Only way is Essex / Geordie shore / Made in Chelsea. Gah. If you aren't an idiot, you soon will be.

People always told me when I was a kid TV rots your brain, I never believed them. Now i'm older damn they were right, and it wasn't even as bad back then....

 

[Caged]

Don't watch rubbish TV, problem solved.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

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

You missed the point entirely. Tax payers would have to continue to pay when the effects of the raised minimum wage rollout through to the price of bread, forcing those who currently work for min. wage to claim again. All raising the minimum wage does is turn the expense wheel, it's not free.

 

[Fubsy]

You missed the point entirely. Tax payers would have to continue to pay when the effects of the raised minimum wage rollout through to the price of bread, forcing those who currently work for min. wage to claim again. All raising the minimum wage does is turn the expense wheel, it's not free.

So are we therefore going to accept that the MAJORITY of the people living in this country take more than they pay in, and continue to accept that? Because that is all that is going to continue to happen with how things are currently heading. What can change it? Preferably something that doesn't result in the bottom of society being **** on from an even higher height.

 

[Tefal]

nvm

 

[mmj_uk]

The basic issue is that the cost of living has become too high, either bring it down or make the wealthy pay higher wages. If Amazon etc are contributing the most in tax it's only because they are making mega profits at the expense of consumers & workers, who are struggling to get by without claiming benefits.

 

[ozaudio]

somebody has to do these low paid jobs, so no matter who does them they'll get tax credits to top up there wage, which is fair , you have a high paid job , they put up with low pay in crappy areas, so why shouldn't they get a top up to help them be better of than been on JSA.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Completely agree, last parliament there was bills going through to stop 0 hour contracts but I don't believe they made it before the end. It would be nice to see them being proposed again and making it to legislation.

Why would that be nice? I once had a zero hour contract, it was great, flexible and suited my circumstances at the time perfectly. Ok sure they are often used inappropriately but outright banning them seems like a ridiculous kneejerk reaction.

Most zero hours jobs probably wouldn't exist full stop without the flexibility a zero contracts brings. Sometimes there simply isn't sufficient work to guarantee a set number of hours. So why ban these jobs?

 

[Freakbro]

Why would that be nice? I once had a zero hour contract, it was great, flexible and suited my circumstances at the time perfectly. Ok sure they are often used inappropriately but outright banning them seems like a ridiculous kneejerk reaction.

Most zero hours jobs probably wouldn't exist full stop without the flexibility a zero contracts brings. Sometimes there simply isn't sufficient work to guarantee a set number of hours. So why ban these jobs?

That's right, there is nothing wrong with zero hour contracts per se, what was wrong was employers demanding exclusivity from the 'employee' while on one. You don't want to guarantee any hours or pay, then don't expect the person to guarantee they are available for you.

This has now been addressed and rightly so, talk about having your cake and eating it.