Benefits...Again!

VTech

seanoconn wrote:

Myself and the Missus both work, own our own home (tiny but nice) and have a 3 year old son we love to bits. Nursery fees for 3 days a week are £750 a month, (grandparents help out the other two days of the working week) akin to having a second mortgage to pay. We knew it would be expensive to have children, it was our choice and we make do.

My wife's old school friend has never worked, got knocked up by a dodgy boyfriend who then left. Lives with her mum and grandad, gets given a 3 bedroom council house plus benefits. Her mum sells her own house, moves into the council house with bags of money and they're all happy as Larry! No nursery fees and no mortgage, doesn't need to work.... It's a hard life.

Sorry, what were we talking about?

Im with you, I would gladly pay £50/week extra tax if I could GUARANTEE that the money would go on childcare for people like yourself.
How can we be in a society where people are rewarded for not working ?
How can we support free houses for the lazy yet not assist for the hard working ?

I am wasteful, its not big and its not clever, my mother is terribly ill and I would give anything to help her but I can't and she has worked all of her life yet is not entitled to any assistance with her funeral costs which for some reason she wanted to organise with MrsV yesterday.
If she hadn't of ever worked she would have even been paid for after she died !

arran77

It's really not right that those who choose to be idle are rewarded so much but at the end of the day no matter how much that p1sses me off I'm happy in the knowledge that everything that I have is hard earned, it makes me really value it

seanoconn

VTech wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

Myself and the Missus both work, own our own home (tiny but nice) and have a 3 year old son we love to bits. Nursery fees for 3 days a week are £750 a month, (grandparents help out the other two days of the working week) akin to having a second mortgage to pay. We knew it would be expensive to have children, it was our choice and we make do.

My wife's old school friend has never worked, got knocked up by a dodgy boyfriend who then left. Lives with her mum and grandad, gets given a 3 bedroom council house plus benefits. Her mum sells her own house, moves into the council house with bags of money and they're all happy as Larry! No nursery fees and no mortgage, doesn't need to work.... It's a hard life.

Sorry, what were we talking about?

Im with you, I would gladly pay £50/week extra tax if I could GUARANTEE that the money would go on childcare for people like yourself.
How can we be in a society where people are rewarded for not working ?
How can we support free houses for the lazy yet not assist for the hard working ?

I am wasteful, its not big and its not clever, my mother is terribly ill and I would give anything to help her but I can't and she has worked all of her life yet is not entitled to any assistance with her funeral costs which for some reason she wanted to organise with MrsV yesterday.
If she hadn't of ever worked she would have even been paid for after she died !

All the best with your Mother V

team47b

Ballysmate wrote:

The 'problem' is an over generous benefit system. Are you saying that the Tories are responsible for making it so generous and are now trying to fix it?

you're not starting at the beginning are you :roll:

pinno

VTech wrote:

Ive mentioned this in a similar post before.

Have a set tax rate aver and above what is liveable, and then decrease tax the more you earn. ???

£15,000 = no tax
£16,000 - £25,000 = 20% tax
£25,001 - £35,000 = 19% tax
£35,001 - £55,000 = 18% tax
£55,001 - £99,999 = 17.5% tax
£100,000 - £150,000 = 17.25% tax
£150,001 - £1,000,000 = 17% tax

This is just an example but I GUARANTEE it would bring in more revenue to the government purses. At the moment, most people I know who take in around the £250,000 - £1,000,000 a year mark pay 10% !!!

We expect Scandinavian levels of healthcare and education yet we are not prepared to pay for it.

Read 'The spirit level' - the levels of tax in the UK for the rich are amongst the lowest in Europe plus the value of tax lost through loopholes such as Non-Dom status, avoidance and evasion are astronomical.

UK Plc is owned by foreign companies and some of them do not pay tax. Thatcher and Blair sold the UK down the river and we will struggle to get it back.
My brother in law pays 55% income tax as he is paid by the Danish government. He is always complaining about what he pays in tax. When I offer the counter argument that he gets some of the best education for his daughters, the best health care that can be offered and a fantastically high standard of living, he still complains.

As an aside. When I lived in Sweden, 50% of my earnings was taxed. I did not pay all the back door taxes of Council Tax, VAT on food and energy, utility bills etc etc(my rent covered heating, lighting, communal washroom). What I had left over was virtually all mine. In the UK the taxation from fuel duty to VAT is Victorianesque. Council tax should be proportionate to income - the more you earn the more you pay. Regardless of a house value that may not be the fault of the occupier.

A couple I know in Oxford bought their house in 1962. They have lived there all there lives. They live next door to a couple who have a Range Rover and a BMW M series. They have never earned much, M was a cleaner at a local university. The couple pay £1500 a year council tax, same as next door who both earn silly money. The value of their house is £275k through no fault of their own. We do not have a fair taxation system in the UK and UK Plc will always be underinvested.

We need to be careful about differentiating scroungers and those who are unemployed but want to work. We cannot tar them with the same brush - Cameroon is putting all unemployed in the same basket for cheap political points to placate the traditional Tory vote and the xenophobes that are drifting towards UKIP.

arran77

I think it shows you how far out of touch these people are when David Cameron is unable to say how much a supermarket value loaf of bread costs but instead extols the virtues of making your own bread with artisan ingredients :roll:

Pross

pinarello001 wrote:

Council tax should be proportionate to income - the more you earn the more you pay. Regardless of a house value that may not be the fault of the occupier.

I'm not sure why. Higher earners already pay more tax (and I'm not talking about the mega rich and 'bankers' here) and I suspect are less likely to use government services (both national and local). To turn your argument on its head why should the couple with the Range Rover and M3 be penalised for doing well in life? Maybe their cars are company cars as if they were so rich why would they stay living in what I would assume from those house prices is a fairly normal, middle class area? Or maybe they are living at the limits of their means and the cars are their reward to themselves for working hard. I've got no problem paying my taxes and definitely feel I should be supporting those who for whatever reason genuinely need help but some people seem keen to tax the desire out of people who aim to do well for themselves to fund a small minority who feel they are owed a living.

After Osborne's speech yesterday Radio 5 interviewed a few long term unemployed people. One said there was nothing there for them (which may well be true but neatly dodged the question of whether he would be prepared to do voluntary work in return for Jobseeker's Allowance) and the other was stating how he couldn't work as he is partially paralysed and suffered epilepsy following a motorbike accident. Now, if a doctor agrees he is incapable of work them obviously he should receive all the benefits necessary to live an acceptable standard of living but his main issue seemed to be that it wasn't safe for him to work due to the epilepsy rather than the paralysis. Presumably medical professionals disagreed as he was deemed fit to work and I know people with severe epilepsy combined with other complications such as Cerebral Palsy who manage to work full-time without issue. Obviously there are some jobs you can't do with epilepsy but there are plenty that you can do. Of course, it may be that he had an incompetent medical professional examine him and he genuinely can't work at all in which case he should be supported.

pinno

Pross wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Council tax should be proportionate to income - the more you earn the more you pay. Regardless of a house value that may not be the fault of the occupier.

I'm not sure why. Higher earners already pay more tax (and I'm not talking about the mega rich and 'bankers' here) and I suspect are less likely to use government services (both national and local). To turn your argument on its head why should the couple with the Range Rover and M3 be penalised for doing well in life?

...because as a percentage of their income, the higher earners are paying a small percentage of their income in council tax whereas the lower earners are paying an astronomical proportion.
What you are saying is that the couple who are doing well are reaping the rewards of success ? That is entirely subjective. Man with Range rover owns a dot.com outfit. M's wife worked as a cleaner in a hospital - who's giving greater benefit to society? We can't all be high earning successful people. Bins have to be emptied, sewers have to be cleaned, parks and streets serviced, hospitals staffed by caterers, nurses and domestic staff - all low earners but providing essential services.

When I lived in Cheltenham and I was receiving treatment. My district nurse lived in Gloucester because she could not afford to live in ponsy posh Cheltenham, she was forced out of her natural home town because of house prices and the cost of living. Does not seem fair.

The taxation 'pyramid' in the UK is upside down. Its funny, those who earn a lot tend to moan about how much tax they have to pay. In the 70's taxation for the super rich was extraordinary - there were still very rich people.

Pross

Maybe not the case here if the Range Rover owner is self-employed and has a competent accountant but in most cases a higher rate tax payer is going to be paying significantly more tax in absolute terms and as a percentage of income.

However, most 'high earners' are salaried and on PAYE. Based on standard tax code someone earning £20,000 a year pays around £3,600 in tax and NI so about 18% of income. Someone earning £50,000 a year is paying around £14,000 in tax and NI so about 28% of income. The real anomaly is where you have a household with one higher rate earner and one not working compared to two people earning 50% of the higher earner's salary. Two people earning £25,000 a year would pay about £4,000 less tax than the person earning £50,000 with a partner not working. So based on the above do you not feel that the £50k salary person already pays his fair share without having to pay additional council tax too?

daviesee

pinarello001 wrote:

...because as a percentage of their income, the higher earners are paying a small percentage of their income in council tax whereas the lower earners are paying an astronomical proportion.

Either the higher earner's have capped their spending on property so they can buy flash car's, or the lower earner's have stretched there budget too stay in a nice house.
Neither choice is wrong. But it is a choice.
If the flash gits bought an expensive house then they would pay more property tax and youd be happy.

Mikey23

Aah the good old days... When I was a fraud investigator I could authorise daily signing if I wished. It was amazing how it messed up some peoples working lives. It gave me the opportunity to identify and see where the little darlings were going after which was often quite good fun. It was amazing how many people would rush in in work clothing and afterwards hop into builders vans and away. I would say that around 9 in 10 signed off within two weeks. Then the namby pamby liberals told us we couldn't do it because it was infringing their dignify... So they started taking the whizz again...

dmclite-3.0

Mikey23 wrote:

Aah the good old days... When I was a fraud investigator I could authorise daily signing if I wished. It was amazing how it messed up some peoples working lives. It gave me the opportunity to identify and see where the little darlings were going after which was often quite good fun. It was amazing how many people would rush in in work clothing and afterwards hop into builders vans and away. I would say that around 9 in 10 signed off within two weeks. Then the namby pamby liberals told us we couldn't do it because it was infringing their dignify... So they started taking the whizz again...

Take their mobiles off 'em, that will really mess their day up. Got an iphone ? On benefits ? hand it over.

(Theres a little bit of daily Mail in all of us, sorry).

VTech

The only people paying the higher rate as a whole are those employed and unable to get away with it.
If your a business owner or part owner I couldnt imagine any of them paying more than basic and then 20% in dividends.


Imagine this. (just as an example)

I run a software company and turn over £7,000,000 with £3,000,000 in profit.

I can run that company anywhere in the world but as a choice I do it in the UK and must pay 40% minimum in tax.

or.........

I buy a house in Dubai and run the business from there, employing 2 locals.

I pay 0% tax have some of the best health care and schools for the kids in the world...


Now I personally chose to live in the UK and pay tax here but so many dont and all that money disappears with them.

Getting back to topic though, whatever happens, we need a system where you are rewarded for working. Low income workers shouldnt pay childcare, they shouldnt pay for prescriptions or council tax making them question wether work is the right choice.

Shelf stackers are the backbone, we destroy them.

Mikey23

I could always rely on the little tinkers to have all the latest gear. Home visits were interesting...

Daz555

pinarello001 wrote:

The taxation 'pyramid' in the UK is upside down. Its funny, those who earn a lot tend to moan about how much tax they have to pay. In the 70's taxation for the super rich was extraordinary - there were still very rich people.

The top 1% of earners pay 25% of all tax revenue. The top 10% of earners pay 50% of all tax revenue - I'll admit I'm in that group.

The problem is not tax, the problem is wealth distribution. The poor are too poor and the rich are too rich. The top 30,000 wage earners in this country pay the same tax as the 13 MILLION people who earn under £20,000 per year. The shock should not be the tax, the shock is the wealth distribution.

Moving tax rates about a bit will not fix that. It will never fix that.

Mikey23

And we in the west continue to get rich in comparison with much of the world. How many still exist on a dollar a day or less? At least our welfare state means there is no real poverty in this country

mamba80

What Cameron wants is a return to the poor house and for his ilk to carry on living in a never never land.
Buy to let is the real thing that needs addressing, this causes massive rents, escallating housing benefit, even for those in work - cap rents for start, its done in the US.
the insanely low min wage allows teso/banks etc to make huge profits on low salaries that we who are net tax payers then subsidise, thru various working benefits.
None of this will change thou 'cause folk just focus on the poor, many many of whom are unemployeable, it the next generation that needs the help to try an avoid them becoming like their parents.

VTech

The rents are capped already based on rooms and locations.

The issue is the government lack of housing that was sold off and not replaced although having said that, we have just had news that they are building 1200 new homes in our area which in turn will wipe off tens of thousands in the value of our properties which means Mr and Mrs V is now looking for a new home.

daviesee

mamba80 wrote:

......the insanely low min wage .....

Funny that.
Our minimum hourly rate is higher than many weekly rate's.

Not that that make's it right, just a bit of perspective.

Mikey23

@m80... Fair comment but I'm not sure that's what Cameron wants. Escalating housing benefit and large numbers of 'unemployable' is the product of many years when the welfare state has been a political hot potato. Neither the blues nor the reds were willing to make the changes that had to be made because it was a massive vote loser. All they would ever do is pussy foot around the edges. So what you now have are the sons and daughters of the unemployable, the folk who have never seen a work ethic in their family. I, like many of my colleagues became so disillusioned with it that I got out at the earliest opportunity in order to do some real work. A decision I've never regretted. So it is great to see a political leader with the bottle to do what needs to be done. Which is to reform a deeply flawed and crazy system that serves no one and still costs a third of GNP

pinno

mamba80 wrote:

Buy to let is the real thing that needs addressing, this causes massive rents, escallating housing benefit, even for those in work - cap rents for start, its done in the US.
the insanely low min wage allows teso/banks etc to make huge profits on low salaries that we who are net tax payers then subsidise, thru various working benefits.

Margaret Thatcher got rid of the rent authority which capped what landlords could charge. We need a re-institution if the rent authority - capped rates set on a local basis. I doubt the tories would do that because they would never upset the landlord voters and do a U turn on a policy set by the fairy godmother herself.

VTech wrote:

The rents are capped already based on rooms and locations.

Oh yeah ? Where ? Spouting Bollox again Vtech ? There's a competition for that in BB, you're welcome to spout.

daviesee

Want a totally logical solution to housing?

Link the average house price to 3x the national average salary. And link rent to that.

That would work but due to negative equity will never, ever, ever happen.

Mikey23

@p... Housing benefits have always been capped according to size, area and suitability. They were when I was doing the job and I assume they still are. Surprisingly enough, rents nearly always reflect the amount that local authorities will meet housing benefit to...

VTech

pinarello001 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Buy to let is the real thing that needs addressing, this causes massive rents, escallating housing benefit, even for those in work - cap rents for start, its done in the US.
the insanely low min wage allows teso/banks etc to make huge profits on low salaries that we who are net tax payers then subsidise, thru various working benefits.

Margaret Thatcher got rid of the rent authority which capped what landlords could charge. We need a re-institution if the rent authority - capped rates set on a local basis. I doubt the tories would do that because they would never upset the landlord voters and do a U turn on a policy set by the fairy godmother herself.

VTech wrote:

The rents are capped already based on rooms and locations.

Oh yeah ? Where ? Spouting Bollox again Vtech ? There's a competition for that in BB, you're welcome to spout.

Your incredibly rude, especially when you have little idea of the law and how rents are capped.
I rent out 4 houses, all of them at capped rates and all of them I rent for BELOW the capped rates to families with children who are autistic and one to a couple who are pensioners. None of them wash there hands and all cost me money so please, for the love of god stop being a total pr4t and get your head around the fact that VTech knows more than you on the odd subject.

VTech

Here is a link to the fair rent scheme for any other knobs wanting to argue the toss.
http://www.voa.gov.uk/corporate/RentOff ... rRent.html

Another way they are working to reduce costs of unfairly high rents here;
https://www.gov.uk/housing-benefit/what-youll-get


There will always be people wanting more for rent than is right but the government are working to stop unfair amounts being paid, mainly through the fair rent scheme. They will NOT pay £2000 for a 1 bed flat in bolton I can assure you.

ballysmate

Woah woah. We have just had a war with the Commuters, surely we don't want civil war.

ballysmate

On second thoughts, I'll get my popcorn.

mr_goo

Years ago when i rented and had young family I lost my job. Signed on and claimed council tax benefit and rent allowance. The council sent an assessor to visit us. I told her that I was ashamed of having to claim for a hand out. She told me not to be so silly, as the council had the third generation of some families in the district that have never done a days work in their life!!! Perhaps these are the people this policy will target. I hope so.
Fortunately I found a job within a month.

ballysmate

Mr Goo wrote:

Years ago when i rented and had young family I lost my job. Signed on and claimed council tax benefit and rent allowance. The council sent an assessor to visit us. I told her that I was ashamed of having to claim for a hand out. She told me not to be so silly, as the council had the third generation of some families in the district that have never done a days work in their life!!! Perhaps these are the people this policy will target. I hope so.
Fortunately I found a job within a month.

They were just following on in the family business.

mr_goo

Ballysmate wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Years ago when i rented and had young family I lost my job. Signed on and claimed council tax benefit and rent allowance. The council sent an assessor to visit us. I told her that I was ashamed of having to claim for a hand out. She told me not to be so silly, as the council had the third generation of some families in the district that have never done a days work in their life!!! Perhaps these are the people this policy will target. I hope so.
Fortunately I found a job within a month.

They were just following on in the family business.

Exactement monsieur.

The question of benefits and council housing has cropped up frequently with my mates. Both mine and my wifes grandparents lived in council property, yet worked. Years ago council housing was for hard working people that didn't earn enough to buy their own property. There was pride in what they did. But sometime in the not too distant past there has been a social shift. Many of the old 'working class' generation has passed on and a lot of the now re-classified 'social housing' has been gifted to people that believe they have an entitlement to be housed, fed and clothed.
Another observation is that in the 70s and 80s (my parents generation), if you were a home owner and wanted to move up in property size, ie from 3 bed to 4/5, it was attainable. Though might have strained the purse a bit, but it was possible. It seems almost impossible to do this now. The difference in value of these kind of properties has jumped to 6 figures. Certainly down in the south anyway. Until this can be addressed there will continue to be a housing shortage.