£12 billion in welfare cuts

mamba80

what would BR members advise Cameron to start with?

i propose rent controls to curb the ever rising toll of housing benefit, plus a return to more social housing, means tested pensioner benefits, abolishing higher rate pension allowances, rising min wage to reduce working benefits bill.
OR maybe we could cut child benefit to all, indeed remove it all together and combine into universal credit, cuts in child and adult social care, removal of disability living allowance (now poor old Dave doesn't need it) cuts to working tax benefits,(ie child, working and housing benefits) enforced removal of council tenants to poorer parts of the country - depending on the figures you believe, from 1000's to 10s of 1000's.

Both lab and con want to limit tax evasion @ 5bn but the 12bn are in addition to this. as is the 13bn of cuts to departmental spending, so look out for less libaries, less road mtce, less care for the elderly and vulnerable children and the return of the 40 spoke wheel to cope with our road network.

Anyway, this is a serious issue and whether Ed or Dave had won, they would both have had these cuts (lab over a 2 year longer term) .... so ideas please

Stevo_666

Maybe more people should have voted for a party that wasn't proposing to slim down the bloated welfare state? If it was such a bad idea I'm surprised that they didn't.

Bobbinogs

Stevo 666 wrote:

Maybe more people should have voted for a party that wasn't proposing to slim down the bloated welfare state? If it was such a bad idea I'm surprised that they didn't.

The strange thing about UK politics is that 4 million people voted for UKIP and got 1 MP and more than 30% of the turnout voted Labour and got a shedload of MPs who are now trying to work out what it exactly is that they want to do...although as the opposition they won't actually do anything for at least 5 years! There is much talk about all the men and women who died preserving the vote* but having a vote in itself doesn't seem to achieve much.

£12 billion in welfare cuts? I would start by limiting child benefit to 2 children. If folks want more than that, great, but I don't want to fund them.


*Note: simplification of some news bites and not meant to demean in any way the heroism of the folks involved in WW2.

slowmart

Twin track, simplify the process and means test the claimants.


If we revert back to the original intentions of the Welfare state it was implemented as a safety net for weakest in our society. Use that sentiment as the guiding principle and it provides a fresh perspective.

Means testing should play much more of a role in determining payments, both in terms of pension and child benefits. These payments are not a right for the majority and should not be viewed as supplementary income and right now its down to affordability for the country.

Leaning, simplifying and codifying the processes would be a sensible start as the benefits seem bloated and over complicated.

RideOnTime

I think that if most people who voted UKIP actually believed their candidate would get in they would't have voted for them.

People are only supporting UKIP as a protest. Nobody surely actually wants these nutters to get anywhere near anything they could be in charge of. If they were actually in government.. OMG I would risk going across the Atlantic in a shoebox.

Bobbinogs

RideOnTime wrote:

... I would risk going across the Atlantic in a shoebox.

Ahh, but there's the rub. The US actually have border controls so you would be sent back

sloppyschleckonds

mamba80 wrote:

what would BR members advise Cameron to start with?

i propose rent controls to curb the ever rising toll of housing benefit, plus a return to more social housing,

Sell off all council housing, make them live in tents.

apreading

I never understand why the Govt doesnt abolish 'road tax' (vehicle tax) and just add the money onto either the MOT fee or more tax on petrol - you could get rid of a whole department and their administration overnight. And if you put it on petrol tax then automatically more is paid by those using their cars more and/or those with less efficient engines - no complex calculations to do etc. By putting it on petrol you would also overnight do away with tax dodging (lost revenue at the moment) and enforcement (a cost to the police etc at the moment).

And yes - limit child benefit to maximum 2 children sounds good to me.

Not convinced about means testing pensions as those with more means probably contrubuted more in national insurance payments before they reached retirement so should they not be entitled to at least the same as people who put nothing in? Generally, I am in favour of means testing but not sure it is fair in respect to pensions...

rick_chasey

Changing the structure would help a lot.

I think a lot of work needs to be done around the 'benefit trap'.

It's tricky. You want to make sure people earn more through working than they do through living off welfare, and so are thus incentivised to work, yet at the same time you don't want to make welfare so pitiful that it puts them in such poverty that the process of putting food on the table and keeping a warm roof over your head occupies all your time.

That problem gets more complicated when you think about childcare. Say you're an unemployed single mother of 3. You pick up (numbers made up to illustrate point) £15,000 a year in welfare.

You pick up a full time job which is £19,000. Perfect, you'd think. £4k more in the bank, and no longer sponging off the state. Only You now have 3 kids with no-one to look after. Childcare costs at least £5k a year (bare minimum) for 3 kids, so then you're £1k down and then you have no time with your children.

Other issues I've seen from friends is benefits are so low currently that they can't afford rent, food AND internet, so they forgoe the internet. Only in order to pick up their benefits, they need to apply to jobs, many of which are online application only. The hassle of having to find somewhere to get internet becomes all consuming - and occasionally fails. When that happens, benefits get cut and they have to ask friends for food / go to a foodbank. Have seen that a couple times with people I know.

It's things like that that make it very complex.

I think it's absolutely reasonable in one of the richest nations in the world that we, as a society, have a bare minimum living standard for people. I think the vast majority of people would rather have a life where they work and earn and feel good about themselves. It's also reasonable to create a system which allows those people the opportunity to have that.

When you are really poor, the issues of staying fed, warm and dry become all consuming - to the point where you aren't able to do things like get a job/apply. It becomes self fulfilling.

That's why a simple focus on 'benefits' isn't enough. You need to look at it from all sides. Where are the jobs going to come from? There needs to be better structure and support for people entering the market, as well as for those not in the market.

ballysmate

That problem gets more complicated when you think about childcare. Say you're an unemployed single mother of 3. You pick up (numbers made up to illustrate point) £15,000 a year in welfare.

You pick up a full time job which is £19,000. Perfect, you'd think. £4k more in the bank, and no longer sponging off the state. Only You now have 3 kids with no-one to look after. Childcare costs at least £5k a year (bare minimum) for 3 kids, so then you're £1k down and then you have no time with your children.

In the scenario you outline, I would suggest that anyone who turned down a job because they can claim more in benefits should lose their benefit entitlements for a period.
Have no time with your children? Are you for real? I would have loved more time with my kids, but I viewed it as my responsibility to provide for them and consequently worked many hours. The idea that you shouldn't go to work but claim benefits instead so that you can play pat a cake is bizarre. No wonder there is a benfits culture with that kind of attitude.
By the way, someone on £7 an hour (above min wage) for 40 hours a week will see less than 14k after tax. How would you expect them to react to the news that someone could turn their nose up at a job paying 5 grand more?

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

That problem gets more complicated when you think about childcare. Say you're an unemployed single mother of 3. You pick up (numbers made up to illustrate point) £15,000 a year in welfare.

You pick up a full time job which is £19,000. Perfect, you'd think. £4k more in the bank, and no longer sponging off the state. Only You now have 3 kids with no-one to look after. Childcare costs at least £5k a year (bare minimum) for 3 kids, so then you're £1k down and then you have no time with your children.

In the scenario you outline, I would suggest that anyone who turned down a job because they can claim more in benefits should lose their benefit entitlements for a period.
Have no time with your children? Are you for real? I would have loved more time with my kids, but I viewed it as my responsibility to provide for them and consequently worked many hours. The idea that you shouldn't go to work but claim benefits instead so that you can play pat a cake is bizarre. No wonder there is a benfits culture with that kind of attitude.
By the way, someone on £7 an hour (above min wage) for 40 hours a week will see less than 14k after tax. How would you expect them to react to the news that someone could turn their nose up at a job paying 5 grand more?

Yeah, but Rick's whole point is that working should be worth more than benefits.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

That problem gets more complicated when you think about childcare. Say you're an unemployed single mother of 3. You pick up (numbers made up to illustrate point) £15,000 a year in welfare.

You pick up a full time job which is £19,000. Perfect, you'd think. £4k more in the bank, and no longer sponging off the state. Only You now have 3 kids with no-one to look after. Childcare costs at least £5k a year (bare minimum) for 3 kids, so then you're £1k down and then you have no time with your children.

In the scenario you outline, I would suggest that anyone who turned down a job because they can claim more in benefits should lose their benefit entitlements for a period.
Have no time with your children? Are you for real? I would have loved more time with my kids, but I viewed it as my responsibility to provide for them and consequently worked many hours. The idea that you shouldn't go to work but claim benefits instead so that you can play pat a cake is bizarre. No wonder there is a benfits culture with that kind of attitude.

Serious? So net £1k down and reduced mother figure in a family is a preferred option?

Harsh world you live in mate. Let's hope you never have to make that kind of decision!

Point is you need to think about all the costs involved, which makes it complex. What on paper looks like a no brainer (in this instance, £4k up) is in fact costing the person more than it bring in, in both time and money.

There's no 'simple' answer, so some thought and effort need to go into reforming the structure, especially around the transition from welfare to employment.

Punishing people by withholding benefit only deepens the cycle of dependency on the state.

ballysmate

I fully understand the thrust of your post, as Finchy said.

But I agree wholeheartedly with Slowmart

If we revert back to the original intentions of the Welfare state it was implemented as a safety net for weakest in our society. Use that sentiment as the guiding principle and it provides a fresh perspective.

norvernrob

Rick Chasey wrote:

Changing the structure would help a lot.

I think a lot of work needs to be done around the 'benefit trap'.

It's tricky. You want to make sure people earn more through working than they do through living off welfare, and so are thus incentivised to work, yet at the same time you don't want to make welfare so pitiful that it puts them in such poverty that the process of putting food on the table and keeping a warm roof over your head occupies all your time.

That problem gets more complicated when you think about childcare. Say you're an unemployed single mother of 3. You pick up (numbers made up to illustrate point) £15,000 a year in welfare.

You pick up a full time job which is £19,000. Perfect, you'd think. £4k more in the bank, and no longer sponging off the state. Only You now have 3 kids with no-one to look after. Childcare costs at least £5k a year (bare minimum) for 3 kids, so then you're £1k down and then you have no time with your children.

Other issues I've seen from friends is benefits are so low currently that they can't afford rent, food AND internet, so they forgoe the internet. Only in order to pick up their benefits, they need to apply to jobs, many of which are online application only. The hassle of having to find somewhere to get internet becomes all consuming - and occasionally fails. When that happens, benefits get cut and they have to ask friends for food / go to a foodbank. Have seen that a couple times with people I know.

It's things like that that make it very complex.

I think it's absolutely reasonable in one of the richest nations in the world that we, as a society, have a bare minimum living standard for people. I think the vast majority of people would rather have a life where they work and earn and feel good about themselves. It's also reasonable to create a system which allows those people the opportunity to have that.

When you are really poor, the issues of staying fed, warm and dry become all consuming - to the point where you aren't able to do things like get a job/apply. It becomes self fulfilling.

That's why a simple focus on 'benefits' isn't enough. You need to look at it from all sides. Where are the jobs going to come from? There needs to be better structure and support for people entering the market, as well as for those not in the market.

Great post. Childcare is hideously expensive - we get 15hrs free for our 3 year old, and pay for an extra 10hrs per week. That amounts to £187 per month, that's just for 1 child for the equivalent of 1 full day per week at nursery.

One child in full time nursery with 15hrs free is going to cost around £500 per month. If you have more than one child at pre-school age how the hell can anyone who isn't earning huge amounts afford to work? We have my parents to help out with childcare as we both work full time, many people don't have that option.

Increasing the amount of free hours to pre school age children would help a massive amount of mothers back into work, at the moment is just isn't worth working for a large percentage of people. I don't care about 'pride' or whatever, nobody is stupid enough to work full time and be significantly worse off than quite legitimately staying at home until their kids are at school.

ballysmate

NorvernRob wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Changing the structure would help a lot.

I think a lot of work needs to be done around the 'benefit trap'.

It's tricky. You want to make sure people earn more through working than they do through living off welfare, and so are thus incentivised to work, yet at the same time you don't want to make welfare so pitiful that it puts them in such poverty that the process of putting food on the table and keeping a warm roof over your head occupies all your time.

That problem gets more complicated when you think about childcare. Say you're an unemployed single mother of 3. You pick up (numbers made up to illustrate point) £15,000 a year in welfare.

You pick up a full time job which is £19,000. Perfect, you'd think. £4k more in the bank, and no longer sponging off the state. Only You now have 3 kids with no-one to look after. Childcare costs at least £5k a year (bare minimum) for 3 kids, so then you're £1k down and then you have no time with your children.

Other issues I've seen from friends is benefits are so low currently that they can't afford rent, food AND internet, so they forgoe the internet. Only in order to pick up their benefits, they need to apply to jobs, many of which are online application only. The hassle of having to find somewhere to get internet becomes all consuming - and occasionally fails. When that happens, benefits get cut and they have to ask friends for food / go to a foodbank. Have seen that a couple times with people I know.

It's things like that that make it very complex.

I think it's absolutely reasonable in one of the richest nations in the world that we, as a society, have a bare minimum living standard for people. I think the vast majority of people would rather have a life where they work and earn and feel good about themselves. It's also reasonable to create a system which allows those people the opportunity to have that.

When you are really poor, the issues of staying fed, warm and dry become all consuming - to the point where you aren't able to do things like get a job/apply. It becomes self fulfilling.

That's why a simple focus on 'benefits' isn't enough. You need to look at it from all sides. Where are the jobs going to come from? There needs to be better structure and support for people entering the market, as well as for those not in the market.

Great post. Childcare is hideously expensive - we get 15hrs free for our 3 year old, and pay for an extra 10hrs per week. That amounts to £187 per month, that's just for 1 child for the equivalent of 1 full day per week at nursery.

One child in full time nursery with 15hrs free is going to cost around £500 per month. If you have more than one child at pre-school age how the hell can anyone who isn't earning huge amounts afford to work? We have my parents to help out with childcare as we both work full time, many people don't have that option.

Increasing the amount of free hours to pre school age children would help a massive amount of mothers back into work, at the moment is just isn't worth working for a large percentage of people. I don't care about 'pride' or whatever, nobody is stupid enough to work full time and be significantly worse off than quite legitimately staying at home until their kids are at school.

So you pay £187 for 40 hours childcare? £4.68 an hour to look after your pride and joy?
At that rate your wages are subsidised by the tax payer to the tune of £280 a month for your "free" 15 hours a week.
How many people on minimum wage does it take paying tax to cover that?

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

I fully understand the thrust of your post, as Finchy said.

But I agree wholeheartedly with Slowmart

If we revert back to the original intentions of the Welfare state it was implemented as a safety net for weakest in our society. Use that sentiment as the guiding principle and it provides a fresh perspective.

bally, i was bought up on benefits, my mum was battered by my dad, a professional in the city and we fled, and i never saw him again, my mum would go cap in hand to the social to get us some coats (they refused) because we lived in my grans house, she was told to sell it, spend the money and come back an get a council house, this is the reality of your slimmed down benefits system.
we were 3, 6 and 9 yo, my mum was forced to get a job and we looked after ourselves, one by one we all went of the rails and messed up school but we could get free further education and we all got a second chance, i work in IT, my bro a civil eng and my sis, a teacher, chances we would never get now, is that good? is that going to help end the cycle of deprivation within families?

Back then there was no tax credit or child credit or housing benefit BUT what you could do, was get a job that paid enough to live on, tough but doable, now, you cant, the state subsidises the employer (who in many cases make huge profits) in some sort of deranged form of socialism, folk are earning £7 hr and getting 6 or 7 k a year back in benefits, just to live, if any on the right think that is ok, then they need to look at what market capitalism is all about.
until we pay people a living wage, we will just sink into more debt and more cuts.

ballysmate

Mamba, I am sorry for the situation you and your family endured and the fact that you and your siblings have found success and I hope happiness is to your credit.
I am not talking about keeping people in such hardship, but maintaining a safety net not a way of life on benefits. There has to be some incentive to get people to try to help themselves. If, as one poster said earlier, personal pride is not enough, there must be other incentives to lure people into jobs.

norvernrob

Ballysmate wrote:

NorvernRob wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Changing the structure would help a lot.

I think a lot of work needs to be done around the 'benefit trap'.

It's tricky. You want to make sure people earn more through working than they do through living off welfare, and so are thus incentivised to work, yet at the same time you don't want to make welfare so pitiful that it puts them in such poverty that the process of putting food on the table and keeping a warm roof over your head occupies all your time.

That problem gets more complicated when you think about childcare. Say you're an unemployed single mother of 3. You pick up (numbers made up to illustrate point) £15,000 a year in welfare.

You pick up a full time job which is £19,000. Perfect, you'd think. £4k more in the bank, and no longer sponging off the state. Only You now have 3 kids with no-one to look after. Childcare costs at least £5k a year (bare minimum) for 3 kids, so then you're £1k down and then you have no time with your children.

Other issues I've seen from friends is benefits are so low currently that they can't afford rent, food AND internet, so they forgoe the internet. Only in order to pick up their benefits, they need to apply to jobs, many of which are online application only. The hassle of having to find somewhere to get internet becomes all consuming - and occasionally fails. When that happens, benefits get cut and they have to ask friends for food / go to a foodbank. Have seen that a couple times with people I know.

It's things like that that make it very complex.

I think it's absolutely reasonable in one of the richest nations in the world that we, as a society, have a bare minimum living standard for people. I think the vast majority of people would rather have a life where they work and earn and feel good about themselves. It's also reasonable to create a system which allows those people the opportunity to have that.

When you are really poor, the issues of staying fed, warm and dry become all consuming - to the point where you aren't able to do things like get a job/apply. It becomes self fulfilling.

That's why a simple focus on 'benefits' isn't enough. You need to look at it from all sides. Where are the jobs going to come from? There needs to be better structure and support for people entering the market, as well as for those not in the market.

Great post. Childcare is hideously expensive - we get 15hrs free for our 3 year old, and pay for an extra 10hrs per week. That amounts to £187 per month, that's just for 1 child for the equivalent of 1 full day per week at nursery.

One child in full time nursery with 15hrs free is going to cost around £500 per month. If you have more than one child at pre-school age how the hell can anyone who isn't earning huge amounts afford to work? We have my parents to help out with childcare as we both work full time, many people don't have that option.

Increasing the amount of free hours to pre school age children would help a massive amount of mothers back into work, at the moment is just isn't worth working for a large percentage of people. I don't care about 'pride' or whatever, nobody is stupid enough to work full time and be significantly worse off than quite legitimately staying at home until their kids are at school.

So you pay £187 for 40 hours childcare? £4.68 an hour to look after your pride and joy?
At that rate your wages are subsidised by the tax payer to the tune of £280 a month for your "free" 15 hours a week.
How many people on minimum wage does it take paying tax to cover that?

No, he's at nursery 25hrs per week. If he did 40hrs per week it would cost us almost £500 per month. We get the same 15hrs free that anybody with a child between 3 and full time school age gets.

How many people on a low wage are going to go to work and be able to afford £500 per month, per child, just in nursery fees? That's for 25hrs care so the job would have to be part time too. And that's also assuming the child is at least 3, as under that you have to pay for all childcare.

So a family with 2 children under 3 would need to find in the region of £1500 per month to put them into full time nursery, and that's in the cheaper parts of the UK. A friend of my wife's runs a nursery in London, it's £1200 per month for a child to go there full time.

Put it this way, I know a LOT of families who pay more in childcare than they do on their mortgage.

ballysmate

I wasn't having a go, I was just trying to show how one person's benefit or allowance is someone else'e tax burden.

we get 15hrs free for our 3 year old, and pay for an extra 10hrs per week. That amounts to £187 per month, that's just for 1 child for the equivalent of 1 full day per week at nursery.

I make that 40 hours a month for 187 quid or 4.68 an hour. At that rate the free 15 hours a week costs the taxpayer 280 a month.
This £280 a month represents the tax take from about 22 people working as drones at somewhere like Amazon.

Shortly before the election there was a piece on the local (Midlands) news ref the benefit cap of 26 grand. The average household income was given at 21k and at this rate it would take the tax from 38(?) average households to pay for one household on the max benefit.

Stevo_666

Some data on Welfare spending in the UK:



Which is somewhere around 16% of all govt spending.

These cuts represent around 10% of the welfare budget - effectively returning the levels of welfare spending to those seen in the latter years of the last Labour administration.

norvernrob

Ballysmate wrote:

I wasn't having a go, I was just trying to show how one person's benefit or allowance is someone else'e tax burden.

we get 15hrs free for our 3 year old, and pay for an extra 10hrs per week. That amounts to £187 per month, that's just for 1 child for the equivalent of 1 full day per week at nursery.

I make that 40 hours a month for 187 quid or 4.68 an hour. At that rate the free 15 hours a week costs the taxpayer 280 a month.
This £280 a month represents the tax take from about 22 people working as drones at somewhere like Amazon.

Shortly before the election there was a piece on the local (Midlands) news ref the benefit cap of 26 grand. The average household income was given at 21k and at this rate it would take the tax from 38(?) average households to pay for one household on the max benefit.

My wife and I pay a whole lot more in tax than £280 per month, but I see your point.

It's a complicated subject - no help with childcare would mean a huge number of parents would not be able to work until their children were in full time school. But low paid jobs don't contribute anything to the system either, as on top of 'free' childcare hours that everyone gets many get working tax credits too as otherwise they would be worse off working (some are anyway).

I think the income point at which a household actually makes a net contribution to the system (tax paid vs money gained back via benefits, childcare, NHS services etc) is around £36,000 per year, so all households earning below that are actually a drain or at best breaking even.

Ps: coincidentally it's just been on the radio that the government is going to double childcare for 3 and 4 year olds, imo that will be a huge help to a lot of working families and get more parents into work. It should increase employment, but unless those jobs are decently paid I doubt it will actually save the government any money.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

I am not talking about keeping people in such hardship, but maintaining a safety net not a way of life on benefits. There has to be some incentive to get people to try to help themselves. If, as one poster said earlier, personal pride is not enough, there must be other incentives to lure people into jobs.

and that incentive needs to be a decent wage, child and working tax credits encourage employers to keep salaries low, housing benefit encourages landlords to keep rent high, the return to social housing would save the state a fortune.
As for the 30 hrs free childcare, dream on, there isnt enough child care providers at present and tbh if people got paid enough, they would nt need all this state intervention, which i am against.
So, why do we give the tax free allowance to people who dont need it? my neighbour, laughed when he heard it would go up to 12k, he said it will go towards his next ski holiday.
Stevo has shown a graph on state benefits, this has risen so much because of low wages, emplyers that can, should be made to pay a decent wage and employers that cant should be allowed to either recover the extra through the tax system or the state makes up the difference, it cannot be right that companies make billions in profit, yet some of their staff, claim so much in benefits.

Giraffoto

Bobbinogs wrote:

The strange thing about UK politics is that 4 million people voted for UKIP and got 1 MP and more than 30% of the turnout voted Labour and got a shedload of MPs who are now trying to work out what it exactly is that they want to do...although as the opposition they won't actually do anything for at least 5 years! There is much talk about all the men and women who died preserving the vote* but having a vote in itself doesn't seem to achieve much.

This is as coherent an argument against proportional representation as you could wish for. The first-past-the-post system has saved us from 60 - 80 of the sort of nutters who'd fit right in at a cross burning.

ballysmate

NorvernRob wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I wasn't having a go, I was just trying to show how one person's benefit or allowance is someone else'e tax burden.

we get 15hrs free for our 3 year old, and pay for an extra 10hrs per week. That amounts to £187 per month, that's just for 1 child for the equivalent of 1 full day per week at nursery.

I make that 40 hours a month for 187 quid or 4.68 an hour. At that rate the free 15 hours a week costs the taxpayer 280 a month.
This £280 a month represents the tax take from about 22 people working as drones at somewhere like Amazon.

Shortly before the election there was a piece on the local (Midlands) news ref the benefit cap of 26 grand. The average household income was given at 21k and at this rate it would take the tax from 38(?) average households to pay for one household on the max benefit.

My wife and I pay a whole lot more in tax than £280 per month, but I see your point.

It's a complicated subject - no help with childcare would mean a huge number of parents would not be able to work until their children were in full time school. But low paid jobs don't contribute anything to the system either, as on top of 'free' childcare hours that everyone gets many get working tax credits too as otherwise they would be worse off working (some are anyway).

I think the income point at which a household actually makes a net contribution to the system (tax paid vs money gained back via benefits, childcare, NHS services etc) is around £36,000 per year, so all households earning below that are actually a drain or at best breaking even.

Ps: coincidentally it's just been on the radio that the government is going to double childcare for 3 and 4 year olds, imo that will be a huge help to a lot of working families and get more parents into work. It should increase employment, but unless those jobs are decently paid I doubt it will actually save the government any money.

In my above post, I seem to have mixed up weeks and months. The figure should be around 5 people working as drones. :oops: Mental arithmetic and red wine eh?

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I am not talking about keeping people in such hardship, but maintaining a safety net not a way of life on benefits. There has to be some incentive to get people to try to help themselves. If, as one poster said earlier, personal pride is not enough, there must be other incentives to lure people into jobs.

and that incentive needs to be a decent wage, child and working tax credits encourage employers to keep salaries low, housing benefit encourages landlords to keep rent high, the return to social housing would save the state a fortune.
As for the 30 hrs free childcare, dream on, there isnt enough child care providers at present and tbh if people got paid enough, they would nt need all this state intervention, which i am against.
So, why do we give the tax free allowance to people who dont need it? my neighbour, laughed when he heard it would go up to 12k, he said it will go towards his next ski holiday.
Stevo has shown a graph on state benefits, this has risen so much because of low wages, emplyers that can, should be made to pay a decent wage and employers that cant should be allowed to either recover the extra through the tax system or the state makes up the difference, it cannot be right that companies make billions in profit, yet some of their staff, claim so much in benefits.

So are you saying that there should be no tax free allowance? Can't see that being a vote winner with the low paid.
As regards how you neighbour spends the money from the increased tax threshold, it is his business. Ski holiday? Why not? Would you feel differently if he used it to set up a food bank or similar?

Paulie W

Ballysmate wrote:

I make that 40 hours a month for 187 quid or 4.68 an hour. At that rate the free 15 hours a week costs the taxpayer 280 a month.
This £280 a month represents the tax take from about 22 people working as drones at somewhere like Amazon.

On a point of detail free childcare is only for 38 weeks of the year so your maths is wrong on more than one count.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

So, why do we give the tax free allowance to people who dont need it? my neighbour, laughed when he heard it would go up to 12k, he said it will go towards his next ski holiday.
Stevo has shown a graph on state benefits, this has risen so much because of low wages, emplyers that can, should be made to pay a decent wage and employers that cant should be allowed to either recover the extra through the tax system or the state makes up the difference, it cannot be right that companies make billions in profit, yet some of their staff, claim so much in benefits.

Some facts:
1. The tax free allowance is progressively withdrawn as an individuals income exceeds £100k pa, at the rate of approx. £1 of allowance for every £2 of income above that limit. So by time you are on around £120k pa, you get no personal allowance. So people who don't need the personal allowance don't get it
2. Nearly 50% of welfare spending is on the state pension, so a large proportion of it has nothing to do with employers paying too little.

It's also worth pointing out that higher wages all feed through to the cost of goods and services, or discourage companies from hiring people at all because they are too expensive. So it's not as simple as imposing artificially high wage rates and thinking that all will be well.

You blanket assumption that 'companies make billions' is massively inaccurate - the majority of people in the private sector are employed by small businesses, many of which are fighting to survive and make a profit.

And as for your neighbour, he has earned it so he can spend it how he damn well wants as Bally said. Moaning about people who are doing OK is the politics of envy and I have no time for that.

rick_chasey

See what I mean?

Any simple policy that fits neatly into a newspaper headline just can't cut it.

Far too complex. Needs considered study with experts from all sides of the equation to make one system that works.

I guess the question is what the objective is.

For some it'll be cost to the taxpayer, others will be a minimum level of living standard. Some will be somewhere inbetween.

Paulie W

Stevo 666 wrote:

Some data on Welfare spending in the UK:



Which is somewhere around 16% of all govt spending.

These cuts represent around 10% of the welfare budget - effectively returning the levels of welfare spending to those seen in the latter years of the last Labour administration.

The welfare spend has of course risen in absolute terms and is about twice what it was in the mid 80s in relative terms (i.e. allowing for inflation) but it has remained relatively constant as proportion of GDP (averageof 11.6%) with a low of about 10% in the late 80s and a high of just under 14% in 2012 reflecting periods of growth and recession.

ballysmate

Paulie W wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I make that 40 hours a month for 187 quid or 4.68 an hour. At that rate the free 15 hours a week costs the taxpayer 280 a month.
This £280 a month represents the tax take from about 22 people working as drones at somewhere like Amazon.

On a point of detail free childcare is only for 38 weeks of the year so your maths is wrong on more than one count.

I erroneously assumed 52 weeks. Didn't have a good night did I? :oops:
But the principle stands. One person's benefit is another's tax burden.
People's wages are in effect being subsidised through childcare by the tax payer. People seem ok with this. The same people claim that wages are too low and are being subsidised by the tax payer through benefits and they are not happy with this. As Stevo said, not all businesses are large multi nationals.

slowmart

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

So, why do we give the tax free allowance to people who dont need it? my neighbour, laughed when he heard it would go up to 12k, he said it will go towards his next ski holiday.
Stevo has shown a graph on state benefits, this has risen so much because of low wages, emplyers that can, should be made to pay a decent wage and employers that cant should be allowed to either recover the extra through the tax system or the state makes up the difference, it cannot be right that companies make billions in profit, yet some of their staff, claim so much in benefits.

Some facts:
1. The tax free allowance is progressively withdrawn as an individuals income exceeds £100k pa, at the rate of approx. £1 of allowance for every £2 of income above that limit. So by time you are on around £120k pa, you get no personal allowance. So people who don't need the personal allowance don't get it
2. Nearly 50% of welfare spending is on the state pension, so a large proportion of it has nothing to do with employers paying too little.

It's also worth pointing out that higher wages all feed through to the cost of goods and services, or discourage companies from hiring people at all because they are too expensive. So it's not as simple as imposing artificially high wage rates and thinking that all will be well.

You blanket assumption that 'companies make billions' is massively inaccurate - the majority of people in the private sector are employed by small businesses, many of which are fighting to survive and make a profit.

And as for your neighbour, he has earned it so he can spend it how he damn well wants as Bally said. Moaning about people who are doing OK is the politics of envy and I have no time for that.

As a business owner I've never thought "i can pay lower salaries as my colleagues will get a state subsidiary". Ever. Market forces dictate salary levels and personal and team performance thereafter. Would you prefer a French style model, higher salaries for those working, higher automation, stifling employment legislation but higher unemployment mainly in the younger demographic? Its simply displacing the issue.

The way Stevo identifies the thresholds and where the majority of welfare payments go should mean lowering the threshold and a means test around personal circumstances? To labour a point its a safety net to help people to get back on their feet. Far to many see it as a life style choice.