Be careful: Satchef1 only wants posts on this thread regarding Working Tax Credits. - You've been warned
Assumed £19.00 a week cuts expected in benefits to those that need it the most.
- Thread starter ethan
- Start date
Be careful: Satchef1 only wants posts on this thread regarding Working Tax Credits. - You've been warned
A trend also I see that is people go mental over these benefit scroungers and why should I have to pay for other people blah blah blah... but people dont seem to care about what is basically corperate welfare / business benefit scrounging.
People seem to not give a care to poor people but when a business is involved ohh we can't pay them enough so the state has to make up for it, the businness cant go under why dont people think of the workers....
People seem to not give a care to poor people but when a business is involved ohh we can't pay them enough so the state has to make up for it, the businness cant go under why dont people think of the workers....
Last edited:
One where I can detect sarcasm.
Be careful: Satchef1 only wants posts on this thread regarding Working Tax Credits. - You've been warned
That's a tad unfair. I merely misunderstood and thought you were attempting to tar those who claim in-work benefits with the same bile used against those claiming out of work benefits.
However, on the subject of your brother in law, what's his standard of living like? If it's reasonable then sure, it sounds like he's receiving too much in benefits. However, you mention that he doesn't look after his house. If that level of care carries across to other areas in life - food, heating, then maybe he doesn't recieved too much, but simply chooses to spend what he has poorly? That means his situation isn't a sign that people are paid too much in benefits, but rather it is a sign that people maybe have too much freedom as to how they are spent.
In principle I am for the state ensuring that everyone in the country has enough money to live in basic decency to a sufficient financial level that takes account of local housing costs and their dependants or exceptional personal needs (e.g. disability, etc.) and I believe that no-one should be in a position where taking on any amount of work makes them worse off than if they don't work at all.
If you can come up with a system that meets these aims without topping up wages - or doing something functionally equivalent - I'd like it hear it.
I'm against us being in a position where large numbers of people who work full time need the state to top up their wages but solving that problem needs us to take steps to empower workers in their relationships with their employers as well as merely raising the national minimum wage. I'd flag up Australian-style sector based negotiation of minimum wages and German style representation of workers on company boards as two of the most promising means of doing so.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
both are already taxed too much and i don't even drink that much at all any more. never smoked. when i started drinking you could get a litre of smirnoff for £9-10, it's now double that price and we are talking it's doubled in the space of 10 years.
taxing them even more is just going to push them underground like drugs. people will switch to home brew, etc. legalise weed and people will just grow their own.
so in your world the uk would be collecting even less tax as people wouldn't be buying the stuff but making it themselves.
they need to limit tax credits to 3 kids same with child benefit, etc. single mums out there with 9 kids at the age of 26 should clearly show people that the benefits system is all wrong.
it promotes people to live separately instead of as couples and marrying. it also promotes having more kids as you then get more benefits.
e.g. lets say you have a couple with 2 children both earning say £15-£20k a year. they will get help with child care but nothing else because they are earning £30-£40k between them.
now lets say they split and take 1 child each, they would now be entitled to £500+ more per month between them tax free. that's roughly a 20% boost to their income by pretending to separate to the system but in reality living together. people who are honest are getting screwed by the system.
so you have a lot of people playing the system. the benefits system is need of an overhaul so that it's a lot fairer to couples and people that work and honest taxpayers.
the whole self employment system needs to be looked at as well. if you simply removed cash from the UK and forced people to use digital currency I'm betting there would be no deficit as their would be a digital paper trail showing how much you or your business really earned. get rid of physical cash and taxes collected would probably double as so many hide cash in hand or pretend to be unemployed yet work or have second jobs which should be taxed at a high rate not being taxed at all. then you have all the illegal workers too they wouldn't be able to get jobs, etc.
also single mums who have never worked and have more than 2 kids should get their benefits reduced to encourage them into work or to stop re-producing. if they cannot afford to feed their kids then let them go into care, better off in the system than living with someone with no sense of responsibility.
fair enough if you make a mistake and have 1 kid as a single mum, sure make the same mistake again but 3+ is taking the wee. they are clearly doing it to play the system.
single mothers can claim ESA if their child is under 4 years. so you have women having a kid every 4 years so they never have to work but get paid a good wage sitting at home tax free and everything paid for. sure they ain't living in luxury but compared to say someone in africa, china, romania, etc they are living like kings.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
these companies use loopholes or aren't even "officially" in the UK.
i bet your one of those that moans about amazon and apple yet has an ipod, iphone and an ipad, etc and uses amazon for a lot of your online purchases. pays your mechanic cash in hand, etc. you cannot have your cake and eat it.
why? because they are cheaper? the reason why they are cheaper is because they don't pay much tax, etc and the way they have set themselves up.
you could in theory have a fairer system where you abolished most taxes in the UK and then increased VAT to 50% but there would be winners and losers in every system. least nobody gets out of paying VAT on commercially produced products.
but how would you tax a photographer or an artist who works mainly on a cash in hand basis?
You do realise these two paragraphs contradict each other? If you limit the benefits by number of children you encourage people with children to remain as separate households or risk losing child benefit.
As for the second: the idea that the amount of extra benefits you get for another child covers the cost of that child is just nonsense. Every serious study of the cost of a child puts the cost significantly above the amount that benefits increase by. Having more children doesn't make you wealthier. In fact, a disturbingly large proportion of people on benefits with children regularly skip meals so they can afford to feed their children.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
they probably looked at normal people in normal situations. go to a scheme like easterhouse and then tell me all that benefit money is going towards the kids.
you seriously think they spend the money on the child? yeah part of it goes there the rest they spend on themselves.
the kids are neglected and is a form of abuse.
why don't you look into exactly how much a single mum with say 5+ kids can earn in a year tax free from the state. it's more than the average wage of full time uk employee. add them all up housing benefit, child benefit, child tax credit, ESA, etc, etc.
i'm talking about those that don't work at all and just have kids to get more money. it's been well documented on tv they have more kids to get more money.
You're talking about a small percentage of the whole though, which is what these arguments always boil down to. There will always be people who don't spend their money responsibly, who game the system for their own selfish benefit. The important thing that everyone needs to remember in the face of newspaper stories and TV programs is that these people don't reflect the behaviour of everyone, and everyone shouldn't suffer because of a few rotten eggs.
The challenge and the solution are in trying to make everyone spend the money they receive in a sensible and fair manner, not in curbing benefits for everyone because a few are irresponsible.
The challenge and the solution are in trying to make everyone spend the money they receive in a sensible and fair manner, not in curbing benefits for everyone because a few are irresponsible.
Yes, that is exactly what the overwhelming majority of people receiving benefits do. Can you find isolated incidents where the kids are neglected? Sure. But these are a tiny, tiny minority of cases. Building policy about then is obscene.
This is a totally misleading comparison because many of these benefits are received by people who are working too.
You cannot rely on the sensationalist media to accurately inform you about the reality of people on benefits, it is their normal practice to present extreme cases as if they are representative when, in fact, they're nothing of the sort.
Seriously increasing the national minimum wage will have no affect on the housing market bar push up the prices even more. As companies will increase their prices to keep their profits at a decent level. Remember when a loaf of bread was below a pound?
Either we build a large number of houses and prevent btl or rentals, which would reduce the average house price. Or we can accept that certain people will never be able to afford there own houses and bring in rental laws as found upon the continent.
Either we build a large number of houses and prevent btl or rentals, which would reduce the average house price. Or we can accept that certain people will never be able to afford there own houses and bring in rental laws as found upon the continent.
Last edited:
Obviously Daily Mail but a fairly good point: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-Time-unlikely-affected-tax-credit-cuts.html
Seems like the lady on QT was mainly misinformed and got herself worked up. As others have said in this thread her Nail Salon is making a loss, meaning she wouldn't be affected by the changes anyway. She may have also opened herself up to an HMRC investigation:
Seems like the lady on QT was mainly misinformed and got herself worked up. As others have said in this thread her Nail Salon is making a loss, meaning she wouldn't be affected by the changes anyway. She may have also opened herself up to an HMRC investigation:
Last edited:
Whilst that may or may not be the case (her statement about the profit making was a bit too vague to be relying on the "doesn't make a profit" part), it doesn't actually change the fact that many other people will be in a situation whereby they will be losing a very large chunk of money despite working and, in many cases, working damned hard.
It's just a right wing paper deflecting from the bigger issue by nitpicking a specific case.
Very much wanting us to move towards a high personal allowance and a lower Personal Tax rate along with lower public spending. £15k, 15% sounds about right No need to top it up from government spending. Even moving NI in line with the PA would instantly mitigate most of the effect of the reduction in tax credits whilst still promoting work.
Is there not a certain fallacy of taxing people, incurring expenses to tax them, then give them back less?
No need to top it up from government spending. Even moving NI in line with the PA would instantly mitigate most of the effect of the reduction in tax credits whilst still promoting work. Is there not a certain fallacy of taxing people, incurring expenses to tax them, then give them back less?
Last edited:
Sounds like many of the posters here, with the usual "I know someone on benefits who has a huge colour TV so everyone on benefits must be rolling in money".
The women in question probably does not make any profit. Not because she is deliberately running a a loss, but because she can't get the work. Since the beginning of the last coalition the DWP has been putting a lot of pressure on unemployed people to become self-employed, just to make the unemployed figures look better. "Self-employed" people bullied into this are usually earning below the minimum wage (which obviously doesn't apply) simply because there is no hope of them ever making more: most are in crowded markets - like nail salons.
In answer to another silly whinge, she works from home because she has children, and can't afford childcare.
And yes, even if this particular case will not be affected, a lot of poor working people will be. The vast majority of people who claim benefits are in work.
There also seem to be a large number of delusional people who think that if the benefits are reduced, employers will raise the wages to make up. Seriously? Why do you think the benefit was being paid in the first place? Because Capitalism is all about paying the least you can get away with. And for the work affected, that means the minimum allowed in law.