[Archived] Government Benefits

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Obviously you can't outsource that kind of job, but perhaps the streets get cleaned less often to keep the cost down, meaning that some people become unemployed or a full-time position becomes part-time.

I acknowledge the problem, I just don't necessarily agree with your solution.

[JAL]

Raising minimum wage would only cause inflation. It costs companies more to pay their workforce, so they put their prices up to compensate rather than accepting a drop in profits. That also makes our exports less competitive, meaning that demand falls and workers get laid off. Yet more businesses will choose to relocate to emerging economies where they can employ people at a fraction of the cost, even if quality of service does suffer. Then, as a result of all this, the pound becomes devalued, meaning that imports are more expensive and at the end of the day nobody is really any better off.

In short, you might end up slightly better off if your minimum wage job still exists 6 months down the line, but the damage a significant increase in minimum wage would do to the economy is simply not worth it.

Government interference in the economy needs to be carefully considered and, where possible, should be limited to steering the markets through taxation and spending.

What does raising petrol prices do for the country ?

Surely now the time has come to release alternate fuel powered cars and drop the petrol powered ones.

[T.J.Newton]

We were talking about an increase in pay for minimum wage workers, then you quoted figures for skilled manual workers, which is a rather different thing. Minimum wage jobs tend to be the kind that you could train any reasonably intelligent animal to do, so it's no problem to just take the operation to wherever labour is cheapest, and plenty of companies will do that before they'll make pay cuts at the highest level.

That's a disgusting comment you horrid creep,

Also i know many skilled manual workers that dont get much more than minnimum wage and i know many very well paid unskilled/unqualified board members/managers etc... that have only got there jobs because of who they know not what they know(or who there related to and so on).

Boardroom Greed is what's killing our manufacturing and business industries in this country, plane and simple.

[thenodrog]

Boardroom Greed is what's killing our manufacturing and business industries in this country, plane and simple.

Could you please explain your thinking on that?

The notion that higher wages would see jobs go abroad is a myth .......

A rather strange opinion from someone from Blackburn where our wealth came almost solely from 'King Cotton' and which was ultimately destroyed by overseas competition based on nothing other than cheap labour.

Also if you want a rising economies to use as a business model to follow you might look further than Germany, look rather at the infrastructure of the developing BRICS economies.

[T.J.Newton]

Pretty self explanatory!(in my experience most companies around here are run by owners, chairmen and boards of directors that are greedy borderline sociopaths that would sooner put people out of work to save a few quid and reach the right profit margin to keep their pockets well lined, rather than just be content to break even once in a while or just learn to run the businesses better). Basically most UK companies are only interested in the money and not the actual business or product they are producing(unlike as you pointed out germany for example where companies take great pride in what they have to offer, how well there company is run and actual how good morale is amongst their employees.

but of course im just an illiterate oaf with a chip on his shoulder talking shyte i suppose you are going to say.

[Miker]

Pretty self explanatory!(unless you are one of those greedy borderline sociopaths that would sooner put people out of work to save a few quid and reach the right profit margin to keep your pockets well lined, rather than just be content to break every once in a while or just learn to run the business better).

Wouldn't making the business run better involve putting people out of work?

[jim mk2]

Wouldn't making the business run better involve putting people out of work?

Brilliant.

[Salgado Is A Hero]

What does raising petrol prices do for the country ?

Surely now the time has come to release alternate fuel powered cars and drop the petrol powered ones.

Many countries have oil as their main export that fuels their economy.....95% of Venezuela's income comes from selling their oil to America.....much of the Arab world also relies on oil.

Oil will still be used for this reason despite all the negative issues, much like tobacco.

[Al]

Surely the biggest issue here is that it would further alienate a section of society that already feel like they are cut adrift?

I think the only thing it would serve to do is appease the feelings of working people who question how their tax money is spent. In reality I doubt it would save enough money to be worth while, and the social impact would be disastrous.

I have no idea what the answer is, but it has to involve making these people feel like they want to contribute to society, and not just push them further away.

I really want to alienate them.

[T.J.Newton]

Wouldn't making the business run better involve putting people out of work?

Only if their job is completely redundant and not just a lazy short term way of saving a few pounds.

[JAL]

Many countries have oil as their main export that fuels their economy.....95% of Venezuela's income comes from selling their oil to America.....much of the Arab world also relies on oil.

Oil will still be used for this reason despite all the negative issues, much like tobacco.

Why do we have to rely heavily on the oil industry when there are alternative fuel/ energy sources available.

At approximately one pound forty a litre of petrol, surely the time has come for change and begin the process to reduce our consumption of oil/petrol in this country.

[thenodrog]

At approximately one pound forty a litre of petrol, surely the time has come for change and begin the process to reduce our consumption of oil/petrol in this country.

Surely it already has jal. Fuel consumption for motoring is down significantly due to modern technology along with various methods of taxation, building regs are constantly changing and grants abound to insulate existing homes. If you haven't noticed wind farms are taking over the horizon all over the country too. If they could raise taxation on fuel much more to a level that would persuade shops to shut their front doors instead of heating the entire town centres and schools, hospitals and offices to turn down the heating a few degrees the situation would be very much better. Sitting inside in shirt sleeves through the winter is folly.

[Steve Moss]

Why do we have to rely heavily on the oil industry when there are alternative fuel/ energy sources available.

At approximately one pound forty a litre of petrol, surely the time has come for change and begin the process to reduce our consumption of oil/petrol in this country.

Isn't the cost more a function of the government's taxation and regulatory policies, as opposed to the real market price of fuel?

[JAL]

Surely it already has jal. Fuel consumption for motoring is down significantly due to modern technology along with various methods of taxation, building regs are constantly changing and grants abound to insulate existing homes. If you haven't noticed wind farms are taking over the horizon all over the country too. If they could raise taxation on fuel much more to a level that would persuade shops to shut their front doors instead of heating the entire town centres and schools, hospitals and offices to turn down the heating a few degrees the situation would be very much better. Sitting inside in shirt sleeves through the winter is folly.

Was looking more from a transportation angle of ourselves and goods around this isle in order to reduce costs incurred on us all.

[JAL]

Isn't the cost more a function of the government's taxation and regulatory policies, as opposed to the real market price of fuel?

Seventy pence per litre of fuel in Thailand versus double that in the UK at one pound forty your most probably right Steve.

You have to ask is this the right way to continue when there could be cheaper alternatives around.

[thenodrog]

Seventy pence per litre of fuel in Thailand versus double that in the UK at one pound forty your most probably right Steve.

Just googled..... the average salary in Thailand is about £5500. It might serve your purpose better to compare the cost in the US.

[Steve Moss]

Just googled..... the average salary in Thailand is about £5500. It might serve your purpose better to compare the cost in the US.

In my area it is about $3.50 per gallon. One gallon equals about 3.8 liters, or $0.92 per liter. Adjusting for for the pound to dollar conversion rate (roughly 1 dollar equals 2/3rd of a pound), then it would be about 60 pence a liter.

I'm not sure my math is correct, so someone should double check it.

And gas prices are very high in the USA right now. I remember about 8 years ago when it was about $1.50 per gallon.

[Amo]

In the last fiscal year, out of the £152.4bn welfare bill - only £4.5bn was attributed to those on JSA. What we have here is government scapegoating of the unemployed. Typical divide and conquer tactics. They are trying to convince us that this relatively miniscule outlay (many of which are victims of the government's own spending cuts) is to blame for the country's financial strain and NOT the perennial tax-dodgers and banker bailouts.

[jim mk2]

In the last fiscal year, out of the £152.4bn welfare bill - only £4.5bn was attributed to those on JSA. What we have here is government scapegoating of the unemployed. Typical divide and conquer tactics. They are trying to convince us that this relatively miniscule outlay (many of which are victims of the government's own spending cuts) is to blame for the country's financial strain and NOT the perennial tax-dodgers and banker bailouts.

Give that man an extra pint.

Now send that post to the letters editor of the Daily Mail and wait for the non-response.

[thenodrog]

In the last fiscal year, out of the £152.4bn welfare bill - only £4.5bn was attributed to those on JSA. What we have here is government scapegoating of the unemployed. Typical divide and conquer tactics. They are trying to convince us that this relatively miniscule outlay (many of which are victims of the government's own spending cuts) is to blame for the country's financial strain and NOT the perennial tax-dodgers and banker bailouts.

Hang on....... Tax dodgers and bankers don't take anything from the welfare either do they?

[Paul]

Hang on....... Tax dodgers and bankers don't take anything from the welfare either do they?

I feel part of Topman's point is the unemployed are targeted as not making a financial contribution to society, rather they are scapegoated for taking from society. In the same manner he suggests bankers and tax evaders, rather than dodgers, do not make a financial contribution relative to their personal worth.

[dave birch]

My original intent in starting the thread was to see if people thought it was a good thing that benefit recipients were restricted in how they spent the said benefits.

FWIW, my thoughts are that yes, they should be restricted. The benefit is not a "wage", it's something given by the Government on behalf of the working population, and as such they should be able to restrict its use.

In restricting the use, it shouldn't cause hardship on "worthy" recipients, as they would be (most probably) using it to maintain themselves. It might, and probably will cause angst on those that "misuse" it, but I wouldn't be overly bothered by that. If you want to spend on luxuries, get a job that pays more than the benefit.

[SydneyRover]

While I'm not wholly opposed to this idea in principle, I think it would create too many small problems which would make it diffiucult to implement in the long run (many of which have already been documented in this thread).

Unlike Jim, I don't think this is necessarily just a right wing policy (in fact it had been instigated by the left leaning Gillard govt), I do however think it is a very pertinent point that rich tax dodgers are victimised far less than those who misuse the benefits system.

I can't remember the exact figures, but rich people dodging tax costs the UK many. many times more (we're talking at least fifteen times as much) money as benefit cheats do. So why do we barely hear anything in the red tops and in every day conversation about these people compared to the benefit cheats?

Even from a moral standpoint, I think it is fair to say a lot of those cheating the benefits system are doing so out of a bit of greed. However, ultimately they are just trying to get themselves a few luxuries that a lot of others have. I must stress it's ultimately wrong to do so considering they haven't worked for it, I think a lot of people would be at least tempted to do the same in that position, even though they might not go through with it.

However, I have no qualms of describing the actions of the super rich tax dodgers as being downright evil. Here you have a group of people who have far more money than they could ever need, the vast majority of which has been accrued by luck as much as anything else (someone worth tens of millions is not thousands of times more talented or hard working than the average person), yet they hide away money in tax havens despite the fact they should be paying this in taxes. This loss of tax revenue directly impacts on the economy of the country and the average citizen.

So from both a financial and a moral standpoint, why do we target those who just want a bit more than the little they have (I'm sure you can bring up isolated exceptions of the seven bedroomed council house etc) and not so much those who basically steal from us all to hang on to money they could never even spend?

[jim mk2]

Tax evasion costs the British economy £69.9 billion a year according to November 2011 figures. Cutting that figure by 50 per cent would wipe out the public deficit in a short time and would enable the damaging cuts to public services and the armed forces to be reversed.

But then it's easier and politically more acceptable to the right to target the poor and weak.

[dave birch]

While I'm not wholly opposed to this idea in principle, I think it would create too many small problems which would make it diffiucult to implement in the long run (many of which have already been documented in this thread).

Unlike Jim, I don't think this is necessarily just a right wing policy (in fact it had been instigated by the left leaning Gillard govt), I do however think it is a very pertinent point that rich tax dodgers are victimised far less than those who misuse the benefits system.

I can't remember the exact figures, but rich people dodging tax costs the UK many. many times more (we're talking at least fifteen times as much) money as benefit cheats do. So why do we barely hear anything in the red tops and in every day conversation about these people compared to the benefit cheats?

Even from a moral standpoint, I think it is fair to say a lot of those cheating the benefits system are doing so out of a bit of greed. However, ultimately they are just trying to get themselves a few luxuries that a lot of others have. I must stress it's ultimately wrong to do so considering they haven't worked for it, I think a lot of people would be at least tempted to do the same in that position, even though they might not go through with it.

However, I have no qualms of describing the actions of the super rich tax dodgers as being downright evil. Here you have a group of people who have far more money than they could ever need, the vast majority of which has been accrued by luck as much as anything else (someone worth tens of millions is not thousands of times more talented or hard working than the average person), yet they hide away money in tax havens despite the fact they should be paying this in taxes. This loss of tax revenue directly impacts on the economy of the country and the average citizen.

So from both a financial and a moral standpoint, why do we target those who just want a bit more than the little they have (I'm sure you can bring up isolated exceptions of the seven bedroomed council house etc) and not so much those who basically steal from us all to hang on to money they could never even spend?

To me, they are two different arguments with the same aim in mind; to reduce the burden on government.

BTW the original idea was set up by an Australian Liberal (Right wing) Government under the auspices of one John Winston Howard, and continued under the Rudd Labor Government and again (and expanded by) the Gillard Government.

The original idea was to stop many aboriginal men from spending their handouts on grog. A proposal supported by many of their wives, so that the family got food on the table. It's an idea that has been supported by some in the poorer parts of the larger cities.

I'm not saying that these people are cheating the system in any way, I'm saying they are using it inappropriately, and that their use of benefits should be monitored so that the benefit is used properly.

There are many, however, that want to live this way, because it's easier than working, because they are bludgers.

Apropos the "tax dodger", well, this is, to my mind illegal and should be stamped on asap. Earn your income in a country, pay your taxes in that country.

However, "tax minimisation" is legitimate, as it uses current tax laws. I use current tax laws to reduce my tax, as I'm sure many Australians (and Brits) do too. Nothing wrong there in my mind.

As I said, this is about benefits, not tax and how much anyone avoids. It's about benefits , Government Benefits, given to people and how they use them and if it's necessary to monitor the use of those benefits.

I think that Government is right to limit what the benefits can be spent on.