[Archived] Government Benefits

[jim mk2]

Great idea, let's hit the weakest and poorest in society again and ignore the real debate as to why the corporate sector and the wealthy are allowed to evade taxes. This Tory-led govt like its predecessors is morally bankrupt.

[meerkat]

Great idea, let's hit the weakest and poorest in society again and ignore the real debate as to why the corporate sector and the wealthy are allowed to evade taxes. This Tory-led govt like its predecessors is morally bankrupt.

+100

[thenodrog]

Great idea, let's hit the weakest and poorest in society again and ignore the real debate as to why the corporate sector and the wealthy are allowed to evade taxes. This Tory-led govt like its predecessors is morally bankrupt.

My suggestion is not to hit them but to get something in return for the taxpayer and reintroduce some work ethic, self belief, pride and community spirit into the long term unemployed to help them break their dependency on free hand outs. You appear to be labelling anybody who pays tax as 'rich'. So don't criticise just for the sake of it thats the easy bit instead lets hear your solution to the problem** other than Cleggs doomed suggestion of soaking the rich to subsidise the parasitical lifestyles of others. One day you'll find the rich aren't there.

**btw take your time cos I'm not holding my breath that you have one.

[adopted scouser]

Great idea, let's hit the weakest and poorest in society .

Whose 'hitting' anyone ? Not like you to load a post with a pejorative slant is it ?

Why is it hitting someone to ask them to return some of the goodwill that a weekly dose of free money provides ? Are we that Ribble Valley Rose Tinted that we don't believe that thousands are milking the system ?

Savage irony that you post continually about the rich exploiting loopholes in the system for their own gain, but turn a blind eye to many at the other end of the scale doing EXACTLY the same thing.

[BiggusLaddus]

An idea is trialled in Australia and Jim blames the tories. What's it like to be a stereotype Wolfie?

[thenodrog]

An idea is trialled in Australia and Jim blames the tories. What's it like to be a stereotype Wolfie?

An Australia that has been under Lab or Liberal leadership for decades.

[T.J.Newton]

I live alone in a housing association home and only earn minimum wage so have to scrape by every month breaking even if I'm lucky(by not spending more than a few quid on myself) and the only 'benefit' I'm entitled to is about £7 a week in working tax credits(which is only money i've earned in the 1st place so hardly an effin benefit!).

[Baz]

My suggestion is not to hit them but to get something in return for the taxpayer and reintroduce some work ethic, self belief, pride and community spirit into the long term unemployed to help them break their dependency on free hand outs. You appear to be labelling anybody who pays tax as 'rich'. So don't criticise just for the sake of it thats the easy bit instead lets hear your solution to the problem** other than Cleggs doomed suggestion of soaking the rich to subsidise the parasitical lifestyles of others. One day you'll find the rich aren't there.

**btw take your time cos I'm not holding my breath that you have one.

Actually, the rich could and should contribute more (even through less tax evasion), it's the average joe in the middle who works hard and pays the highest % of tax that are suffering the most.

[jim mk2]

**btw take your time cos I'm not holding my breath that you have one.

Easy Alf. Double at least the minimum wage and pay all workers a decent living wage so that it is worthwhile going to work. And please don't claim the country or companies cannot afford it - if those in the boardroom paid themselves less and corporations and individuals paid the correct amount of tax there would be more in the pot for everyone. There are numerous studies showing the income gap has widened to record levels over the past 30 years - in other words, the rich have got significantly richer and the poor have got poorer, so please explain why in the current economic crisis it is acceptable to keep on hitting the weak and most vulnerable with cuts in benefits and hitting low-paid workers with pay cuts and often loss of their jobs while the fatcats who caused this mess in the first place are allowed to carry on as if nothing had happened ?

[T.J.Newton]

personally, even though i dont have more than £50 to my name i just dont think its fair to have differant tax rates, everybody should be on the same tax rate but there should be a zero tolerance on any kind of tax evasion or taking advantage of loopholes.

As far as im concerned its most company owners/ceos/directors that are scum, there the ones that hand out bonuces to management/sales reps/supervisors and all the other tossers that take claim for the work done by muppets like me, when in truth most factories(in my case) would run a lot more smoothly and efficiently without halve the management and supervisors.

[Baz]

Because that would make the rich richer and the poor poorer, regardless of whether we think a flat tax rate is fair or not.

Here's a rough calculation...

Person A earns £10k p/a. Person B earns £100k p/a.

At the moment, due to tax bands, Person A probably pays around £2k p/a in tax/NI while Person B probably pays around £35k.

Let's slap a flat rate of 25% tax rate for everyone.

Person A now pays £2.5k p/a while Person B now pays £25k p/a.

Leaving... far less money in the government kitty.

We could always print more money?

You assume there are similar volumes of £10k and £100k workers in your calcs, that's just not true. Tax evasion by the top percentile earners means they pay 50% less tax on average worker.

Osborne told the Daily Telegraph in April:

I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs, and to be fair it's within the tax laws, so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don't think that's right.

I'm talking about people right at the top. I'm talking about people with incomes of many millions of pounds a year. The general principle is that people should pay income tax and that includes people with the highest incomes.

I'm not allowed to be shown the names of the individuals but I've sat with the most senior people at the Inland Revenue, the people who run some of the high net worth units there. They have given me examples, anonymised examples, and so we are taking action.

The question is, what has Osbourne achieved On this since April?

[jim mk2]

The question is, what has Osbourne achieved On this since April?

Nothing. Meanwhile those at the bottom of society are being targeted for further cuts.

[thenodrog]

Easy Alf. Double at least the minimum wage and pay all workers a decent living wage so that it is worthwhile going to work. And please don't claim the country or companies cannot afford it - if those in the boardroom paid themselves less and corporations and individuals paid the correct amount of tax there would be more in the pot for everyone. There are numerous studies showing the income gap has widened to record levels over the past 30 years - in other words, the rich have got significantly richer and the poor have got poorer, so please explain why in the current economic crisis it is acceptable to keep on hitting the weak and most vulnerable with cuts in benefits and hitting low-paid workers with pay cuts and often loss of their jobs while the fatcats who caused this mess in the first place are allowed to carry on as if nothing had happened ?

And in doing so export countless thousand more labour intensive jobs. ....... Next

[thenodrog]

Actually, the rich could and should contribute more (even through less tax evasion), it's the average joe in the middle who works hard and pays the highest % of tax that are suffering the most.

You have a valid point Baz..... as long as you are not a 'Joe' in which case you would say that wouldn't you?

[thenodrog]

personally, even though i dont have more than £50 to my name i just dont think its fair to have differant tax rates, everybody should be on the same tax rate but there should be a zero tolerance on any kind of tax evasion or taking advantage of loopholes.

As far as im concerned its most company owners/ceos/directors that are scum, there the ones that hand out bonuces to management/sales reps/supervisors and all the other tossers that take claim for the work done by muppets like me, when in truth most factories(in my case) would run a lot more smoothly and efficiently without halve the management and supervisors.

Hardly.... When you were at school and your teacher told you that hard work and study would get you a good career why tf didn't you listen? If you had then you might now be earning yourself sum bonuces to. Everybody is given the chance of a leg up in life through the education system, so it's no good whining if you were not prepared to grasp any opportunities on offer to improve youir lot.

[thenodrog]

There are so many levels to deal with here.

Those who are physically unable to work I have no problem subsidising generously with tax money. We were all born and some were just dealt an unlucky card and it could have been any one of us.

What if I was one of the seven children born into a non-working family on benefits?

Child Benefits should be more generous if anything but curtailed after 2 children.

Never mind the nation, the worlds population explosion is a serious threat to the future of all. People who breed as a lifestyle / career option to that extent without the financial means to support their offspring are parasites and need targetting first. The last thing they should receive for their selfish irresponsibility is reward.... or might 'bounty' be a better description?

Because that would make the rich richer and the poor poorer, regardless of whether we think a flat tax rate is fair or not.

Here's a rough calculation...

Person A earns £10k p/a. Person B earns £100k p/a.

At the moment, due to tax bands, Person A probably pays around £2k p/a in tax/NI while Person B probably pays around £35k.

Let's slap a flat rate of 25% tax rate for everyone.

Person A now pays £2.5k p/a while Person B now pays £25k p/a.

Leaving... far less money in the government kitty.

We could always print more money?

Person B is still paying more tax into the nations coffers than 10 person A's. Surely thats enough? Person B should be rewarded not penalised.

Nothing. Meanwhile those at the bottom of society are being targeted for further cuts.

If they are at the bottom of society by choice or action then thats fine by me.

Look at it another way, if there were less scroungers and benefits cheats there might be more in the kitty to help the genuinely unfortunate ones.

[jim mk2]

And in doing so export countless thousand more labour intensive jobs. ....... Next

The overall costs would be the same because the people at the top would be paying themselves less ... anathema to the likes of you I know. Next.

You have a valid point Baz..... as long as you are not a 'Joe' in which case you would say that wouldn't you?

As a self-confessed tax evader I'm sure you would say it.

Child Benefits should not more generous but curtailed after 2 children.

Never mind the nation, the worlds population explosion is a serious threat to the future of all. People who breed as a lifestyle / career option to that extent without the financial means to support their offspring are parasites and need targetting first. The last thing they should receive for their selfish irresponsibility is reward.... or might 'bounty' be a better description?

Most developed countries have ageing populations but Britain is a welcome exception. We need more babies, not fewer.

Person B is still paying more tax into the nations coffers than 10 person A's. Surely thats enough? Person B should be rewarded not penalised.

Person B pays a tax commensurate with his earnings. It's called fairness.

[jim mk2]

If they are at the bottom of society by choice or action then thats fine by me.

Look at it another way, if there were less scroungers and benefits cheats there might be more in the kitty to help the genuinely unfortunate ones.

I think you'll find the so-called "scroungers" and benfits cheats" (copyright Daily Mail) are very few in number and are in fact mostly a figment of the right wing's imagination. More important is creating jobs with decent wages for those on the dole to aspire to. Your beloved Tory govt hasn't a clue so how about some suggestions ?

[Baz]

You have a valid point Baz..... as long as you are not a 'Joe' in which case you would say that wouldn't you?

I don't think my personal situation has anything to do with this. I know I'm in the minority, but even on my very squeezed financial situation I'd contribute more if it was going to causes I believed in, and everyone was paying their fair share e.g. To decrease the burden on students, to match the spending needs of the NHS and such like.

The farcical situation, where I pay thousands of pounds more tax than "Sir" Philip Green is a national disgrace. If these people weren't funding the political parties, I'd suggest they may have a little more pressure on them to pay up. Whilst its legal, it's also morally reprehensible.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

I think you'll find the so-called "scroungers" and benfits cheats" (copyright Daily Mail) are very few in number and are in fact mostly a figment of the right wing's imagination. More important is creating jobs with decent wages for those on the dole to aspire to. Your beloved Tory govt hasn't a clue so how about some suggestions ?

BS Champaign Socialism at its most contradictory, I have worked in front line local government services for quite a while. Trust me the genuine cases of hardship are far-outnumbered by those making lifestyle choices. In fact I would say proportion is less than a quarter of people who I see.

The failure is with the state, which is incapacitated from taking the tough decisions it should do because its too scared of liberal establishment, who plunder money from challenging LA’s and central government. Look at the rise in legal aid in the last few years.

The welfare state has created a monster which is out of control and an under-class who are savvy at exposing its many loopholes

[T.J.Newton]

Hardly.... When you were at school and your teacher told you that hard work and study would get you a good career why tf didn't you listen? If you had then you might now be earning yourself sum bonuces to. Everybody is given the chance of a leg up in life through the education system, so it's no good whining if you were not prepared to grasp any opportunities on offer to improve youir lot.

Well that's ballacks you smug arrogant.....(i remember now why i had you on my ignore list), For example NONE of the supervisors or managers where i work have a single qualification of any merit between them(other than one of these mickey mouse weekend jolly up management courses), they've mostly got there jobs through back stabbing, flat out lying and botty licking(or simply by being related to the employer in some hillbilly way).

Also as Jimmk2 says in his last post you have a very deluded daily mail view of this country, assuming anybody that doesn't work or doesn't go on to some kind of further education or training is just lazy(how wrong you are!) and its disgustingly condescending of you to presume what opportunities you think i had and why i did or didn't(or couldn't) take up these 'opportunities' and I'm not going to explain my personal reasons for how i've just ended up in crap jobs to you!!!

And a large percentage of unemployed adults usually have un-diagnosed mental illnesses/behavioural disorders and/or learning difficulties(which is what makes them unemployable even if they do want work), if this country took mental health issues seriously instead of trying to brush them under the carpet then i believe there would be massive improvements in society and less people would self medicate on drugs and alcohol.

[jim mk2]

The welfare state has created a monster which is out of control and an under-class who are savvy at exposing its many loopholes

Oh really ?

Figures provided by a member of your beloved government.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/08/10/1-the-real-extent-of-benefit-fraud/

[adopted scouser]

And a large percentage of unemployed adults usually have un-diagnosed mental illnesses/behavioural disorders and/or learning difficulties(which is what makes them unemployable even if they do want work)

What a load of arse. Always someone else's fault isn't it ?

Grow up.

[colin]

I think we need a comment from someone on benefits before we all start judging. Or perhaps someone who knows about the state benefit system.

I do know that if someone is unable to work due to illness thenn they are entitled to Statutory Sick Pay of £85.85 per week. It's not a massive amount.

[Paul]

I think we need a comment from someone on benefits before we all start judging. Or perhaps someone who knows about the state benefit system.

I do know that if someone is unable to work due to illness thenn they are entitled to Statutory Sick Pay of £85.85 per week. It's not a massive amount.

My feeling is too often the wider public react and comment without real knowledge of how the system works, the needs of many on benefits and the impact years of savage government cuts have on claimants' quality of life. No doubt "benefit cheats" exist and work the system - regretably this is a soft, populist target making headlines for the media, and winning votes for the government from a nation ignorant of the real issues. By continuing to focus on such areas, which is a relatively small proportion of claimants, we ignore, in fact do not comprehend, the needs of the less able, in every sense, and the impact government policy has on their lives.

Some years ago government introduced "care packages" for those requiring long term care. This provides the individual with an assessed annual sum which firstly allows the individual or his/her carers to decide on the appropriate care to be provided and secondly "follows" the individual if he/she moved from one authority's jurisdiction to another. This excellent concept replaced the formulaic approach which existed under the previous system whereby "the professionals" took decisions on the person's behalf. This is / was progress and in the mid 90s began to provide real care whilst allowing individuals to have a quality of life approaching that many in this country take for granted.

Alongside these packages the claimant qualifies for state benefits which are more commonly known or possibly understood. The names change but basically unemployment benefit, housing benefit, incapacity benefit etc. Many of the benefits people associate with the scroungers and cheats headlines, prompting outrage and pushing the electorate into believing the state funds too much for too many. Unemployment benefit, incapacity benefit etc. are / were the disposable income of people in such a position as daily care costs, housing etc. were covered by the package, housing benefit etc.

Recently governments have introduced the concept or idea people should fund / pay for their own care. The target usually discussed is the elderly and their longterm health provision, care homes etc. allowing the media and middle classes to become outraged at people selling their homes to pay for care etc. etc. The idea being those who have enjoyed a long, probably heatlthy life and accumulated some wealth should use this money to pay for their own care in old age. Not unreasonable in my view.

We often hear, those who listen hear, of a section of society who are the soft target, those who cannot stand up for themselves, who are almost silent to the majority of the population. It is these people, the ones in receipt of the packages outlined above, who require care throughout their lives, who are on the receiving end of savage government cut backs in welfare spending. Local authorities have increasingly used the concept of an individual paying for their own care to claw back funds provided to the mentally and physically disabled intended to pay for their care. Those who have "wealth" in the loosest sense are also voters, taking money from those who vote at local or national level is tough. Taking it from the section of society who don't even know what a vote is has become a far easier target.

The harsh reality is Lancashire, an authority which 10-15 years ago was regarded as one of the best in the country in regard to caring for the less advantaged, now reclaims from the individual 85% (yes £85 in every £100) of their disposable income (provided through unemployment benefit, incapacity benefit) to pay for their "own care" when these individuals have no possibility to care for themselves.

Lets be clear - government provides a care package and an income through unemployment benefit etc. Lancashire CC then take back 85% of the unemployment benefit etc to pay for the care package. Unbelievable? No, true.

I can spell this out for you in real terms. After a person has paid all necessary living expenses, food, house, water, heat etc. Lancashire assess the person's remaining disposable income and invoices the individual for 85% of that income each month to pay for their care. This leaves £58 / week of disposable income. Sound good? Consider what is not paid for and what many consider a necessity in life:

a good night out (meal for two in the Clog or Oyster anyone?)

Virgin package (£88 / month AS - this is not a dig at you)

clothes (hardly a life essential)

shoes (see above)

Leeds ticket (a snip at £36!)

travel

razor blades

haircut

mobile phone

laptop, perhaps an iPad or tablet as well

Playstation? perhaps £40 on a game? Why not?

TV licence

cinema

swimming

ten pin bowling

night at disabled sports club (not to worry it's being closed - NO funding)

annual holiday (for two of course because if you require care you have to pay for the carer's holiday and 24 hour care at a "contribution" rate of £15 / hour - absolute bargain)

Christmas presents

when your carer takes you out paying for their cinema ticket, refreshment, travel, fuel contribution etc.

I'll challenge anyone to achieve any of that on £58; the sort of money young people consider a decent night out or older folk think is a good deal for two with drinks thrown in

I could go on but won't.

The above is the harsh reality in Britain today of the impact of government cuts on welfare provision. Target those who cannot defend themselves while making mealy-mouthed platitudes to the media and the voters. Leave their families and carers to pay the bills and wonder what the future holds - for all Tony Blair's faults this was never the case under Labour (and I'm not going into that debate). This is David Cameron's BIG SOCIETY - the man doesn't even understand what the little society really needs. The man who appears never to have gone without.

By all means complain about benefit cheats, yes crack down on them, but don't be fooled into believing that small percentage is responsible for issues we face as a society. Complain about scroungers by all means, ask for them to pay their way, but you should shout much LOUDER for the people who really need help,for the people whose lives are severly impacted everyday by David Cameron and George Osbourne in their failing attempts to restore the economy.

This is the real experience of most people, able bodied or otherwise, on benefits. An already hard life which is getting harder by the day.

A final point,no one wants sympathy or platitudes, what people need is understanding and higher taxes to pay for what society should provide.......but it's much easier to complain about scroungers than it is to understand the true situation.

Apologies but Colin asked for real experience. That's it........not really very pleasant is it?