More than half of homes take more than they contribute

[regulus]

No I wasn't hungry for work, I quite enjoyed not having a lot to do, I just applied for the jobs I thought I could do.

No one can just apply for one or two jobs thesedays, Job Centre has checks in place and I had to do 20 "activities" a week and had to record them or I would be sanctioned.

You can't game the system anymore, people are getting sanctioned left, right and center which is why I am fed up of people crapping on the unemployed when they clearly don't have a clue.

Good, why should you game the system anyway?

You're not gaming the system, your gaming your own life and future.

All for a few crumbs thrown your way.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Of course there was an uproar.
A good moan and whine (they do have the time to do so) worked well as now the money can go on cigarettes and fancy TVs!

Which they bought while they had a job?

When I was on benefits £70 didn't go very far and I lived alone, not sure where I could have got the money for a "fancy TV".

 

[One]

In principle, yes, I would agree with you. But then it depends on how these figures are quantified. Are they based upon the 'free at the point of receipt' services that households receive, such as NHS treatments, calling the police or simply welfare state cheques? It seems like a near impossible thing to quantify as simply being in your GP's waiting room is unlikely to be something tracked, so there has to be an innate level of inaccuracy to these statistics, surely?

Yes it's fabricated bull**** with an underlying logic, but the estimation factor will be huge. I can only go by the OP which says

"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."

So based on that 50% seems quite well balanced. Of course getting it down to 40% again is presumably how our government/society was able to advance during the 70s and 80s as there was a positive cashflow they could spend.

 

[regulus]

State pensions are what we need to get rid of in the long run, as even if we achieve full employment, that figure is still going to grow as the demographics arent against us. Everyone should have a private pension with employer contributions.

Also, we need to get rid of as much debt as we can. That massive interest repayment needs to be sorted out.

Which is why I think NZ has a good system with 'Kiwi Saver'. I enrolled the day I got my first salary after moving here. If I stay here and keep paying in to it, I'm in line to get far over a million bucks the day I retire. And if I increase contributions progressively, I'll retire on that alone. Never mind my other private pensions plans.

 

[Zefan]

I expected better from the Telegraph. That headline is really cheap, shameful journalism.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

It's a bit stupid as well. Why spend billions on a massive computer system just to spend the same amount in handouts anyway.

Also all that will happen is that a grey market comes into existence to get around it. Whats to stop people buying a commoditised product on the list of allowable products and then selling it? You are just adding a transaction cost which people will make a lot of money off, taking the money away from the people you intended to give it to.

Amen.

I'm glad people get why "cards" wont work - and it's not for the "stigma" reasons many allude to.

 

[Rofflay]

Yes I could, I looked at it out of curiosity and was quite shocked, because I work all she can get is DLA if i didn't she would get the DLA, ESA, carers allowance I would get JSA full CT rebate to name but a few, when I looked at it I think I would have been £70 per week better off. I couldn't do it though I would be board out of my head after 2 weeks.

Carers and JSA at the same time how can you look after someone and be available for work? How would that work you do realise on JSA you get hounded and sanctioned for inactivity? Also you say you would be better off when infact all you would be getting would be £70-£100 a week max income.


She would be the only person to get more because DLA + Carers + ESA if they all do combine so she would get the working wage and you would get very little. So how do you work out you would earn more unless you mean as a couple? You would be earning less. People shouting about we would earn more and not telling the truth because there is no way for anyone to get over £100 a week themselves. Pretty much everyone is cut down to the same figure eventually.

 

[the wopster]

Carers and JSA at the same time how can you look after someone and be available for work? How would that work you do realise on JSA you get hounded and sanctioned for inactivity? Also you say you would be better off when infact all you would be getting would be £70-£100 a week max income.


She would be the only person to get more because DLA + Carers + ESA if they all do combine so she would get the working wage and you would get very little. So how do you work out you would earn more unless you mean as a couple? You would be earning less. People shouting about we would earn more and not telling the truth because there is no way for anyone to get over £100 a week themselves. Pretty much everyone is cut down to the same figure eventually.

You get carers for the night time duties so JSA and carers are available at the same time.

That's what I mean as a family we would be about £70 per week better off than we are now, this is why they should make it pay to work not sit a home on your arse

 

[spoffle]

Yet they are still not paying corporation TAX.

They are paying what they legally owe, I don't see why people fixate on corporation tax specifically whilst ignoring all the other areas of tax like have already been mentioned, VAT, income tax and NI for the employees and so on. Why not look at the whole picture rather than fixating on corporation tax that they are legally avoiding?

 

[Xelene]

I expected better from the Telegraph. That headline is really cheap, shameful journalism.

It got loads of hits and didn't need a journalist to write.

 

[Meridian]

I expected better from the Telegraph. That headline is really cheap, shameful journalism.

Really? You can't have been reading it long: it's just the Sun spelt correctly, and with upper-class page three girls with their clothes still on.


As for this thread, it's just a standard OcUK ignorant rant stream. A few people seem to be able to read budgets, but most people in here just spout semi-digested Daily Mail headlines. I can't be bothered to read everything so I assume that people have pointed out:

a) The largest wedge of government money goes on pensioners. All are net receivers except for a handful of very rich ones. Not just the pension, but medical bills, homes etc. This is a massive part of the overall government bill.

b) Of those receiving other benefits, the vast majority are actually in work. The government effectively subsidises companies to underpay workers.

c) Of those on the dole, the large majority will claim for no more than a few weeks before getting another low-paid job (see b) above). Most dole receivers move from one low-paid job to another. Mostly because well-paid jobs are getting rarer.

d) If you are a full-time student, as many here are, then you are one of the people draining money.

e) If you have at least one child in full education, then odds are you aren't paying enough tax to cover the costs. Unless you are being paid aver the national median wage I suspect.

 

[Calabi]

The people stating that min wage should be raised clearly don't understand basic economics. Raising min wage will only increase inflation and prices of rent and food will increase to match. many of the effects are very indirect, non-linear and complex, but some are very direct and obvious - McDonalds base the cost of their value meal on minimum wage and expected takeout frequency.



Increasing minimum wage in itself will not resolve much, beyond making any manual labour work even less competitive in the global market.



Now I certainly believe the lowest paid need to some how have a more livable wage out of this but raising the minimum wage simply wont achieve that, at least not without a lot of other effects. I simply don't know the solution, i'm not an economist, but I expet some kind of negative income tax would work at least a little better albeit still with inflation issues to which there is no simple solution.

Why would something like bread suddenly go up in price because peoples wages went up? Do people suddenly double there bread intake? Do people suddenly not understand the prices of things.

So they dont care about the price increase? Their wages could go up and people could buy less bread because the decide to spend it on something else and they see the price increase.

Its really getting ridiculous with this non proven economics nonsense. People are not lemmings or robots they do not respond in predictable ways.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Why would something like bread suddenly go up in price because peoples wages went up? Do people suddenly double there bread intake? Do people suddenly not understand the prices of things.

The theory is that bread is a relatively prince inelastic product and if wages increased then a consumers ability to pay also increases, which can lead to price increases.

 

[Calabi]

The theory is that bread is a relatively prince inelastic product and if wages increased then a consumers ability to pay also increases, which can lead to price increases.

I know the theory but its complete non proven nonsense, it doesnt understand people at all.

If the price of bread suddenly doubled overnight, would people just shrug there shoulders and be whatever? With no explanation or reason except blatant profiteering, you couldnt predict or be sure what the people would do.

Lots of angry people, bread riots, maybe they will reduce there bread spend make there own, who knows? What if one or two retailers do not increase there bread prices, they could suddenly find themselves with increased customers and profits.

Just because people have more money doesnt mean they think they are richer or that they dont understand the current value of money, or make them more free-er spending with it.

 

[Nitefly]

If only people realised that the housing market problem could be solved by increasing my salary.

 

[muon]

The theory is that bread is a relatively prince inelastic product and if wages increased then a consumers ability to pay also increases, which can lead to price increases.

For bread it is the supply which matters. It is plentiful and so the price will always be close to cost.

The question is how much is the price of bread affected by the minimum wage. Probably not much.

How much would labour intensive goods/services be affected? Probably quite a lot.

 

[arknor]

You get carers for the night time duties so JSA and carers are available at the same time.

That's what I mean as a family we would be about £70 per week better off than we are now, this is why they should make it pay to work not sit a home on your arse

carers allowance gets deducted

Effect on other benefits

If you get Universal Credit, it might affect how much you get from other benefits.

Any means-tested benefits you get will be reduced by the same amount you get from Carer’s Allowance. This includes:

Housing Benefit
Income Support
income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
Pension Credit
Universal Credit

Their severe disability premium will stop if you get Carer’s Allowance for looking after them. It can also affect their Council Tax reduction. Contact your local council to find out if this affects them.

sounds like a double whammy?


I'm not convinced you get get jsa and carers because to be a career you are supposed to be caring for the other person

Carer’s Allowance is £61.35 a week to help you look after someone with substantial caring needs.

You don’t have to be related to, or live with, the person you care for.

You must be 16 or over and spend at least 35 hours a week caring for them.

35 hours of care and still be available for work?

To get Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) you must:

be 18 or over but below State Pension age - there are some exceptions if you’re 16 or 17
not be in full-time education
be in England, Scotland or Wales
be able and available for work
be actively seeking work
work on average less than 16 hours a week
go to a JSA interview

if you're a carer technically you are working 35 hours a week too?

 

[itchy]

Really? You can't have been reading it long: it's just the Sun spelt correctly, and with upper-class page three girls with their clothes still on.


As for this thread, it's just a standard OcUK ignorant rant stream. A few people seem to be able to read budgets, but most people in here just spout semi-digested Daily Mail headlines. I can't be bothered to read everything so I assume that people have pointed out:

a) The largest wedge of government money goes on pensioners. All are net receivers except for a handful of very rich ones. Not just the pension, but medical bills, homes etc. This is a massive part of the overall government bill.

b) Of those receiving other benefits, the vast majority are actually in work. The government effectively subsidises companies to underpay workers.

c) Of those on the dole, the large majority will claim for no more than a few weeks before getting another low-paid job (see b) above). Most dole receivers move from one low-paid job to another. Mostly because well-paid jobs are getting rarer.

d) If you are a full-time student, as many here are, then you are one of the people draining money.

e) If you have at least one child in full education, then odds are you aren't paying enough tax to cover the costs. Unless you are being paid aver the national median wage I suspect.

^^^^This!

We only have one child because thats all we can afford, and we struggeling with that.
0% wage increase for my partner in the NHS in the past 4 years!

 

[regulus]

^^^^This!

We only have one child because thats all we can afford, and we struggeling with that.
0% wage increase for my partner in the NHS in the past 4 years!

Have more and have someone else pick up the bill. It's how we roll in the UK

 

[Tefal]

Why would something like bread suddenly go up in price because peoples wages went up? Do people suddenly double there bread intake? Do people suddenly not understand the prices of things.

because you have to pay the people in the shop, the bread factory, the janitor, the road workers, the dock workers, the security gaurd etc etc more money?