Assumed £19.00 a week cuts expected in benefits to those that need it the most.

[Deleted member 66701]

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?

And get rid of regressive tax systems - VAT etc.

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.

Or that reducing unemployment benefits instantly makes claimants more employable.

We'll see how that works when they can't afford a shirt or shoes for an interview.

 

[Danthus]

When the Living Wage comes into force employing under 25's will become far more desirable.

 

[FoxEye]

Or that reducing unemployment benefits instantly makes claimants more employable.

Show us one person who has said this.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

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.

I worked on tax credits for 3 months

I personally looked into about 40-50 cases per day 5 days a week for those 3 months.

I can ensure you I know a lot more about the system than the papers. I'm not allowed to disclose specifics but I can ensure you at least 15% of claimants don't deserve the money they get from tax credits. There are a lot there though that do deserve the money but there is probably an equal amount who don't deserve it.

HMRC don't have the resources to tackle fraud at all so they estimate it as being lower than 5% because they have no clue how rife it is.

A single mother phoned up to ask that now her employer was offering her 30-32 hours per week and she usually worked 24 how much more money would HMRC give her (there is a 30+ hour element).

It was explained to her that she would be roughly £1600-£2000 a year better off by working those extra 6-8 hours a week but she didn't think it was worth it because HMRC would only be giving her an extra £10 a month on top of what she was already getting.

Basically she wanted HMRC to give her more and didn't want to work for the money basically. Even though it was explained her employer would be giving her more money because she was working more.

Some people out there are happy to just get along without striving to do better and live off the state handouts.

I could also tell you about the couple whom one was earning £30-£40K (self employed) the other unemployed, then they must have seen an accountant. He set up a limited company now both he and his wife worked for that company 30+ hours a week but were earning £10K each per year.

Where did that other £20K go? Now his wife was also working and both were under the personal limit so that meant they paid less tax, yet were entitled to more credits. So before they were getting next to nothing now they were getting a substantial amount of extra tax free income as well as paying zero tax.

 

[dowie]

well that does highlights a couple of areas where getting rid of tax credits can help - incentivising people to take on more work instead of rewarding them when they're working only a 20 hour week and not subsidising self employed people who either don't have a feasible business and so should be looking for work instead or who are hiding their income

 

[FoxEye]

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.

If the minimum wage allowed in law isn't enough to survive (in a certain place, eg London), then surely people will stop doing that work, and either move away or end up on benefits. The employer still needs that work to be done, so if he wants staff he'll need to raise the wages he pays, no?

What we're not saying is that people should be left to starve. But it would be better for the state to pay unemployment benefits and those employers to start losing staff, than for the staff to remain and have their salaries topped up by the govt.

One will force change in the marketplace, the other will continue the status quo of the government paying part of the wages of private sector workers.

Nobody is saying it'll happen overnight. But we need to force change here. If that means taking some people out of employment temporarily, then let's do it. Ultimately, many people do expect wages to rise, or house prices to fall, or both. But not even economists know for sure exactly how things will play out.

 

[McPhee]

15% of claimants don't deserve the money they get? So 85% do? I can live with that. Why punish the 85% because of the actions of the other 15%?

 

[Woden]

There are more unemployed than there are vacancies. You could fill every position in the country and there would still be unemployed peoplepeople.

 

[dowie]

There are more unemployed than there are vacancies. You could fill every position in the country and there would still be unemployed peoplepeople.

what does that have to do with the thread? FYI employment isn't exactly a static situation either.

 

[FoxEye]

There are more unemployed than there are vacancies. You could fill every position in the country and there would still be unemployed peoplepeople.

Yes but if the jobs don't pay enough for people to survive, then nobody will take them.

Ultimately, if people are taking the jobs then they must be paying enough to live on. At least that's how it *should* be. We've skewed things by allowing people to take jobs that don't meet this condition, and then topping them up with with money from the govt.

 

[Caged]

If the minimum wage allowed in law isn't enough to survive (in a certain place, eg London), then surely people will stop doing that work, and either move away or end up on benefits. The employer still needs that work to be done, so if he wants staff he'll need to raise the wages he pays, no?

What we're not saying is that people should be left to starve. But it would be better for the state to pay unemployment benefits and those employers to start losing staff, than for the staff to remain and have their salaries topped up by the govt.

One will force change in the marketplace, the other will continue the status quo of the government paying part of the wages of private sector workers.

Nobody is saying it'll happen overnight. But we need to force change here. If that means taking some people out of employment temporarily, then let's do it. Ultimately, many people do expect wages to rise, or house prices to fall, or both. But not even economists know for sure exactly how things will play out.

Don't you work for the state?

 

[FoxEye]

Don't you work for the state?

I used to work for local govt. In the last years of my employment, we were outsourced and then massively downsized (pay did rise significantly after outsourcing, in fairness).

I was laid off a few months ago, in another round of cuts.

Before the cuts there was a lot of waste, but believe me they've cut to the bone in recent times. Which is fair enough. Local govt should not try to be a major employer, when everything else has been privatised.

 

[Woden]

what does that have to do with the thread? FYI employment isn't exactly a static situation either.

I've seen it written here a number of times that we should cut off benefits for the unemployed. That would leave us in a position where it is flat out impossible for everyone to obtain money legally.

Yes but if the jobs don't pay enough for people to survive, then nobody will take them.

Ultimately, if people are taking the jobs then they must be paying enough to live on. At least that's how it *should* be. We've skewed things by allowing people to take jobs that don't meet this condition, and then topping them up with with money from the govt.

I get that, but if minimum wage doesn't cover the cost of living, the position we are in now, and you cut working tax credit before increasing the wage, what's the point in working at all?

 

[dowie]

I've seen it written here a number of times that we should cut off benefits for the unemployed. That would leave us in a position where it is flat out impossible for everyone to obtain money legally.

perhaps quote the specific posts, this thread isn't about JSA

 

[Caged]

I can't help thinking that policy makers are skating towards a position where the puck is never going to be. This idea that we can let low-skilled industry go because the people affected can just reskill is a bit fanciful. We seem to be trending towards higher skilled tasks requiring fewer people, and offshoring or automating where possible.

Now this is great as it frees people up from having to work, but when work is required to have an income, which is required to be able to do pretty much anything it's not such a rosy idea.

I'm actually asking to be schooled here - what has the population of working-age people done in the past 15-20 years, and what has the shift in sectors employing people looked like? I don't deny that new types of job will open up, but not everybody can be employed in PR or Costa.

 

[Freakbro]

I could also tell you about the couple whom one was earning £30-£40K (self employed) the other unemployed, then they must have seen an accountant. He set up a limited company now both he and his wife worked for that company 30+ hours a week but were earning £10K each per year.

Where did that other £20K go? Now his wife was also working and both were under the personal limit so that meant they paid less tax, yet were entitled to more credits. So before they were getting next to nothing now they were getting a substantial amount of extra tax free income as well as paying zero tax.

In this case the extra £20k is still in the company as profit and Corp tax will be paid, though this way means a lot less NI being paid overall.

So it just shows its not only 'unemployed people on benefits' who game the system (even when within the rules) to benefit themselves via the public purse.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

In this case the extra £20k is still in the company as profit and Corp tax will be paid, though this way means a lot less NI being paid overall.

So it just shows its not only 'unemployed people on benefits' who game the system (even when within the rules) to benefit themselves via the public purse.

or since he is a window cleaner he pocketed the £20K as cash in hand

 

[Destination]

15% of claimants don't deserve the money they get? So 85% do? I can live with that. Why punish the 85% because of the actions of the other 15%?

He means under the current system loads are lying.
Anyway.
Points stands, emplyers funding employees rather than taxpayers supplementing it, is a much better idea.
Go gideon.

 

[Caged]

If that happens then it's a better idea, but AFAIK there is nothing in the proposals to force or even encourage employers to make up the difference. Other than a tiny hourly wage bump a couple of years down the line.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

If that happens then it's a better idea, but AFAIK there is nothing in the proposals to force or even encourage employers to make up the difference. Other than a tiny hourly wage bump a couple of years down the line.

people need to either strive harder or live within their means if they are struggling.

it's amazing how people will say they are skipping meals to feed their kids yet own an iphone, etc.

you can buy a flat in cumbernauld for like £15K (yes it will be a dump but what do you expect for £15K?) and it's not that hard to get a £15K+ per year job that doesn't require any skills or experience or qualifications if you don't have a criminal record, etc. It's just a matter of persistence.

People that want to work will easily find work and then it's funny how they progress whilst others never do. It's because they work harder and strive to succeed.

The benefits system as it currently stands gives out too much money and isn't encouraging some people to try and find work or better work.

It's funny how some random eastern european can come here who doesn't speak a word of english and find a job within a week yet some in this country haven't had one in 5+ years.

Like i said above a window cleaner was earning £30-£40K a year. You could easily do 4-6 houses in an hour at £5-£10 per pop. Start up costs are next to nothing (ladders, bucket, van, water, fairy liquid, etc).

Train drivers earn like £40K a year.

Lots of apprenticeships for things like the merchant navy, etc where you earn £12K a year for 3 years then move onto £30K+ per year.

These people that say there are no jobs I would like to see what they are actually doing to find one other than lying to everyone around them.