[Closed] I see eight people here having to choose between eating or heating

My old dad would be ashamed of what the benefits system has become
He left the RAF in 1947 to go back down the pit

He spent the next few years as a union leader and local Labour Party policy advisor
They built us a great system and we're letting it implode.

[img] [/img]

Sandwich, I see your point, obviously my thought was just that and I would hope Government policy would consist of more than one sentence and have a lot more thought behind it to protect those currently in employment.

But in reference to your comment about unskilled labour all going on the dole, you are highlighting what is wrong with the current welfare system:

Minimum wage for 21 and over is £6.08, on a 45 hour week that's £273.60, two working parents and that's £547.20 a week before basic rate tax so that's (hang on a mo, i need a calculator .....) somewhere in the region of £495 after tax. The family in question on the BBC website get £582.40 per week without having to pay tax. Who is better off? the working family or the one on benefits? This is an illustration using a case I know little about but I think you get my point here.

Just in case you were wondering, the proposed £26k a year = £500 a week.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that society should support those who need it but I also believe that you should not be better off on benefits than in work or there will never be an incentive to get work will there.

I wonder how many people are going to read that story and walk away thinking it's a good example?

Minimum wage for 21 and over is £6.08, on a 45 hour week that's £273.60, two working parents and that's £547.20 a week before basic rate tax so that's (hang on a mo, i need a calculator .....) somewhere in the region of £495 after tax. The family in question on the BBC website get £582.40 per week without having to pay tax. Who is better off? the working family or the one on benefits? This is an illustration using a case I know little about but I think you get my point here.

If you're comparing like for like, then the working family in your example will also be receiving child benefit and likely other top up benefits.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that society should support those who need it but I also believe that you should not be better off on benefits than in work or there will never be an incentive to get work will there.

OK, so make taxes less of a burden on those working on low wages, increase taxes on the well-off to pay for it (and spend more on combating tax evasion/avoidance, which has been proven cost-effective).

Simple.

Funny how there's never the same tabloid induced outcry about tax cheats/avoiders, wonder why?

Yeah, but the ones on benefits have got the time during the day to burgle peoples houses while they're at work, and fit in a bit of shoplifting. So they're quids in really

the computing world moves on - if he's got obsolete skills he's got little chance of finding a role.

nothing to stop him learnign new ones in 10 years though, it has to be said.

Yes and no - I agree that his skills from 10 years back are of little use today, but as a programmer with a fair amount of free time it shouldn't take him more than a month or two (at most) to pick up a new language, obviously not to expert level but enough to get a job. But yes, he'd probably need to move.

I do find myself (much to my horror!) agreeing with TJ though: given enough benefits claimants there will always be a few that seriously* abuse the system, and they're the ones that the media will pick up on.

* Seriously abusing the system: if you're unemployed and a mate pays you 50GBP to help him move house it's probably illegal, but personally I don't have a problem with it...

Funny how there's never the same tabloid induced outcry about tax cheats/avoiders, wonder why?

The Guardian are quite quiet on the issue as well.....

10 years out of work is just taking the piss big time
he either.....

a) is lazy
b) earns more not working

either shouldn't be allowed under any circumstances

The other thing to consider with moving from benefits to work is not just how much you earn but the extra. If you go from 10000 per year on benefits to 11000 in a job working a 35hour week then you could argue that you ar ebetter off in work. However, many would see that as working 35 hours a week for £1000 as they could get the other £10,000 doing nothing. So not only do you need to be better off but it needs to be worth your while.

Vinneyeh - good point, my mistake. child allowance is £20 odd quid a week isn't it? not sure on the other benefits as I am fortunate enough to be in employment.

Grum - you're right, those that cheat any system need to be held to account and those that make the system need to work to reduce the holes used by people to legitimately avoid paying.

10 years out of work is just taking the piss big time
he either.....

a) is lazy
b) earns more not working

I agree, minimum wages should be higher.

Don't get out much, by the way, Jota? Plenty of work for everyone all over these islands is there?

The Guardian are quite quiet on the issue as well.....

They're not that quiet on the issue, although maybe they've quietened down a bit since it was revealed that they use some kind of off-shore accounting practices themselves.

Five Live were on about it this morning too

This morning, for example, I learnt that Amazon pay not a penny of tax in the UK

That was sort of the point, Grum, not just the tabloids who have a problem there!

This morning, for example, I learnt that Amazon pay not a penny of tax in the UK

Thank **** their new base is in Scotland

Binners - corporation tax is all about where the company is registered, Amazon are registered in Luxembourg, not sure what their rates are but I think it's fair to say they are less than here.

Jota - that Scottish base won't make any difference.

Don't get out much, by the way, Jota? Plenty of work for everyone all over these islands is there?

We're talking the last 10 years here vinnyeh not months
we couldn't get enough people [engineers mates on £18K]3 or 4 years ago
we were based in Stockport too

This morning, for example, I learnt that Amazon pay not a penny of [b]corporation [/b]tax in the UK

FTFY

They pay NI, rates, PAYE etc here, and corporation tax where they are incorporated, but I get your point.

Hardly alone though, are they?

I'm pretty sure in France you get a very good percentage of whatever you were earning before

IT's about 70 percent of your gross salary, minus 7 days and the holidays. For two years. Then you get the RSA so about 400€ a month.

Trouble is, just about all the companies who do business here seem to be registered in Luxembourg, the Cayman Islands, Belize etc for tax purposes.

But lets not think about them, lets give 'benefit scroungers' a kicking. I can't think why News International (who pay less than 1% of its income in tax) for example, don't highlight the issue more?

Vinney - surely [i]THEY[/i] don't pay PAYE. Their employees do. Thats a very different matter

I notice she suffers from one of those "illnesses" that regularly crops up with people like that, y'know, the ones that are very difficult for a doctor to disprove... Illnesses that you can claim are debilitating with little or no evidence to the contrary... Illnesses that seem to affect quite a few people of the hard-working persuasion who seem to manage or treat the symptoms enough to hold down regular employment without any difficulty whatsoever...

Y'know, like agoraphobia, anxiety, ME, back pain, asthma...

Just sayin like...

Are we suggesting we mimick mainland Europe and INCREASE benefits? See all that stuff about a crisis in Euroland? Guess what, they are tightening their belts like crazy over there.

Because of a calender quirk we just had a 5.2% rise in benefits payments yet public sector workers (and just about everyone else) are getting nothing for the forseable future. Utter madness.

We want to take everyone out of income tax up to £10k at least.

binners - nothing we can do about corporation tax, if we have different rules then they'll just not bother trading with the UK or our prices will rise. As we're not self sufficient we'd be cutting our nose off to spite our face.

In general the public could ensure they buy British from British companies, this would help the matter but we're talking years for it to have any impact. But there's nothing to stop you or I making that change right now.

We'd be better off closing the loopholes that many companies that are registered in the UK use to avoid paying tax while staying within the letter of the law.

Illnesses that you can claim are debilitating with little or no evidence to the contrary... Illnesses that seem to affect quite a few people of the hard-working persuasion who seem to manage or treat the symptoms enough to hold down regular employment without any difficulty whatsoever...

Y'know, like agoraphobia, anxiety, ME, back pain, asthma...

I've got one of those illnesses. And yes I manage to hold down a job and don't claim any benefits - but if I could only get inflexible, physically demanding minimum wage work it would be extremely difficult to do that.

Again, I'm sure some people abuse it - but rather that than people who are genuinely struggling are accused of being lazy scroungers eh? Oh.....

[i]TandemJeremy - Member

No luxuries at all allowed if you are unemployed - bare basics for survival only despite the fact we do not have work for millions of people [/i]

So are fags on booze esentials? These peope, seem to do OK out of our benefits system.

Conversely, after my old mum had her second heart attack she was directly instructed to give up work by her doctor. But she was refused any benefits because she had voluntarily given up employment.

Subsequently several folk told her the "correct" answers to put on forms, but she refused to lie so she got nowt.

What I find hard to believe is that a computer programmer could be out of work for 10 years: a miner or shipworker, I could understand, but a programmer???

I have a mate who is a Fortran expert from the days when Fortran was a mainstream programming language. He might as well be a coal miner with that skill-set.

He learned the basics of C++ on a night course and got a job working on a C++ project fixing code. The problem was that the code he was fixing was so huge, undocumented, badly organised and ill-supported he could not do the job. He's given it all up now.

madhouse - I agree with you on that. Is there by any chance you can get hold of accurate information about which companies regard UK tax as a minor inconvenience to be dispensed with?

200 fags AND a packet of rolling 'baccy... where's the "bag of weed" cost in their weekly spend then?

Incentives!

People act on the incentives they are given. Why work when you can get free housing and a more money than the minimum wage.

So;
1. Decrease the taxes / disincentives to minimum wage earners / maybe increase the minimum wage / remove any barriers to employers
2. Disincentivise living on the dole - If you want to live on the dole and are;
a: single - government supplies dormitory accommodation with canteen food
b: in a family - larger family accommodation with canteen
c: disabled/OAP - humane level of support as necessary

Free roof over your head / food / health care / basic job help - should be all that tax payers should pay for. Make it civil but not so comfortable that people don't feel the need to get back on their feet.

Safety net not a safety water bed and down duvet!

where's the "bag of weed" cost in their weekly spend then?

They get that for free because they are dealing too, duh!

wanderer - did you just suggest bringing back the poorhouse?

Possibly. It's hard to know what the right course of action is. Are those in the BBC case the norm or just the few. I work with a lot of people on the minimum wage who would be better off (financially) on the dole.

So I know at least that part of the system is wrong.

I'm a big believer in hard work should get you somewhere. If you don't want to work then that's cool - but I don't think you should get a free ride.

Living in London, I see so many people who are obviously scamming the system - it makes my blood boil that I have to work so hard to pay for their free house as well as my rent!

binners - not really, I knew the Amazon thing due to there being an invoice of theirs on my desk! Companies House and associated websites (which are probably easier to use) will tell you if a company is incorporated in the UK, if they're not on that list then they are registered elsewhere (obviously).
Although you will need to work out if holding companies are involved as the trading name may not be the same as the publicly known trademark. Even then if they are registered in the UK if they are part of a group they may still get away with it.

Most companies websites will have their registered office on, which may give their true location away but that's not definitive either. If they've an investors section you'll get more information from there, a quick look at their annual accounts will be telling as more often than not they'll use the currency of their country of domicile.

So basically it's all a big complicated minefield.

He learned the basics of C++ on a night course and got a job working on a C++ project fixing code. The problem was that the code he was fixing was so huge, undocumented, badly organised and ill-supported he could not do the job. He's given it all up now.

As opposed to sticking it out, and applying for a new job at the same time?

He has brought shame on us the WELSH, with his portrayl of the benefits he is legally allowed to get paid.

But surely he would like a job to get him away from the wife and kids, as most men do.

See a lot of this at my work.. Folk with alcoholism, drug addiction and mental health probs.. Like someone already mentioned these folk seem to think they're entitled to their benefits despite never working a day in their lives. I accept that a lot of these folk are ill and do need help. But not to maintain the sort of lifestyle as detailed in the BBC article.. I accept it may have been written to polarise opinions (or troll) but I'm sad to say I see the same thing most days I'm at work.
Challenged folk about it a few times (until I realised how pointless it was) and they're answer was that theyre sick and deserve it.. That's what our benefits culture has turned into, a place where someone believes it's their right NOT to work at all during their life if they have some sort (any) sort of illness. I have asthma but in general (apart from maybe if I have a bad chest infection for acouple of weeks or something similar)im able to do a reasonably physical, demanding job. Mind you, ive never smoked and am not a heavy drinker (ie, 24 cans of lager a week!) but feel a lot of folk just play the system, and mostly, get away with it. Wecsntgo on like this.
I really do despair sometimes.
And then I think what their five kids are gonna turn out like and it gets worse.
Think something has to be done now, not 100% sure the cap will sort it out, but I guess it's a step in the right direction..

So, rather than have people on benefits do community work, why can't we just have more council jobs doing the same thing? End result is the same but without any kerfuffle.

The answer is to run the economy so we do not have millions of unemployed people.

~When tehre is a job for everyone then we don't need the benefits

Molgrips - we could esily do this - however it would drive up the cost of labour so is not in the tories interest

High unemplyment keeps down the cost of labour and makes hire and fire easy.

it would drive up the cost of labour so is not in [s]the tories[/s] anyone's interest

High unemplyment [s]keeps down the cost of labour and makes hire and fire easy. [/s] makes people unhappy, and likely to vote for 'anyone but this lot'

makes sense now.

We need to bring in maximum pay limits for all jobs, and increase the pay for lower paid jobs with the savings, then create lots of jobs, tidying up the environmnet, careing for older people, and general non skilled jobs.

We need to somehow take empty homes back into public ownership,and charge affordable rents, reduce the council tax for the lower paid, and reduce the intrest rates on mortgages, possibly by natioanlising the banks with no compenstion for the shareholders, just the price of their shares back, large companies owning shares in Banks, should just get a small proportin back.

Roll on the socialist revolution

That sounds hideous. I'm rather pleased it'll never happen.

High unemplyment [s]keeps down the cost of labour and makes hire and fire easy[/s]. makes people unhappy, and likely to vote for 'anyone but this lot'

makes sense now.

There's no evidence that is true.

I know of one prime minister who double unemployment and yet got an increased majority.

As long as they convince voters that unemployment is not their fault, which they usually do - specially if backed up by the press, and that unemployed people should get off their arses and stop sponging, which they usually do - specially if backed up by the press, then high unemployment really isn't a problem for governments.

In fact it keeps wages low and profits high, so really quite desirable.

Except of course that skint people can't afford to buy goods and services, so profits are affected in the long run. But that sort of talk concerning the contradictions of capitalism is marxist stuff, so we choose to ignore it and pretend it doesn't happen.

This is why those on benfits don't always get much sympathy - none of the above expenditures are 'essential'

possibly by natioanlising the banks with no compenstion for the shareholders

Love to see you try & get support for that idea.. 🙄

I haven't had heating for 3 years... When faced with the question of £300 for a full tank of oil... or £300 for a marmot triclimate parka you are going to buy anyway... you easily realize you have electrically heated showers and the joy of the postman's face as you accept packages. 🙂

Roll on the socialist revolution

Is`nt the Socialist evolution moving quick enough or you ?

"possibly by natioanlising the banks with no compenstion for the shareholders"

Love to see you try & get support for that idea..

Well at least you don't think there'll be any problem with project's other ideas, it's just that idea you think will cause problems. Lets run through project's other ideas again :

[i]"We need to bring in maximum pay limits for all jobs, and increase the pay for lower paid jobs with the savings, then create lots of jobs, tidying up the environmnet, careing for older people, and general non skilled jobs.

We need to somehow take empty homes back into public ownership,and charge affordable rents, reduce the council tax for the lower paid, and reduce the intrest rates on mortgages, possibly by natioanlising the banks with no compenstion for the shareholder......"[/i]

So we'll leave nationalising the banks with no compensation until there's a bit more support then.
Sounds OK to me.

BTW, how much compensation was paid to shareholders when the banks were nationalised 3 years ago - was it a lot ?

wallace1492 - Member

"TandemJeremy - Member

No luxuries at all allowed if you are unemployed - bare basics for survival only despite the fact we do not have work for millions of people"

So are fags on booze esentials? These peope, seem to do OK out of our benefits system.

I meant allowed by folk onhere - sarcasm? Wooshing over your head?

Ok I don't think much of their priorities especially the fags. However to deny folk any luxuries at all in this day and age seems rather harsh when we have millions out of work - there simply is no job for most of the unemployed to go into if they all retrain and get skills and apply for jobs tomorrow where are all these new jobs coming from? there will still be 3 million unemployed

Surely these people cannot be happy, how can they be.
In my simple little world view the whole point of life is to pursue happiness for the family and oneself.
If there is no pursuit then there can be no appreciation.

Both my brothers have worked for 30 plus years on salaries closer to the minimum wage than I care to think,they pay into the system and have always held their own despite the fact they could have easily taken the lazy option.
Despite the fact that by having the good fortune of a university education, and the salary that often goes with that, my brothers are a great source of inspiration to me.
Lazy ****ers in wales that sit on their backside funded by people who often are earning 10 to 20 k themselves is wrong.
Its also wrong that those that have paid into the system or saved a bit for a rainy day get means tested to the extreme if they ever lose thier job. The system is broken and encourages lazy irresponsible behaviour.

grum - Member
Funny how there's never the same tabloid induced outcry about tax cheats/avoiders, wonder why?

tell that to the head of the Student Loans Company 😉

personally the best answer to some of the issues presented are to take time from those on benefits, be it on courses to become employable or some pointless activity it doesn't matter tyhe point is that if you are getting money something is wanted in return i.e. your time

as for the benefits cap, I'll ask the person stacking the shelves in Morrisons or working in the call centre part of my company tomorrow and see what they think of it

CHB - Its also wrong that those that have paid into the system or saved a bit for a rainy day get means tested to the extreme if they ever lose thier job.

So you want means testing for some but not others? thats the deserving and undeserving poor again?

Lazy ****ers in wales that sit on their backside funded by people who often are earning 10 to 20 k themselves is wrong.

Its also wrong that those that have paid into the system or saved a bit for a rainy day get means tested to the extreme if they ever lose thier job.

The system is broken and encourages lazy irresponsible behaviour from banlers together we could strive for full employment, a decent living wage and together we could eradicate child poverty in the 6 th richest country in the world if we just shared the wealth around a bit more equitably

Of course we could just attack the poor and ask bankers not to take a £2 million pound bonus instead

BigN daft not is not a bad idea at first glance but it just drives wages down. i tend to agree that voluntary work should be mandatory though as a general rule
we cannot train people for jobs as their are more unemployed than jobs

However to deny folk any luxuries at all in this day and age seems rather harsh when we have millions out of work - there simply is no job for most of the unemployed to go into if they all retrain and get skills and apply for jobs tomorrow where are all these new jobs coming from? there will still be 3 million unemployed

I can't undersatnd the logic of working people cancelling Sky subscriptions, stopping smoking and rarely going out to save money due to pay constraint and rising prices and their taxes being used to fund another families Sky package £128/ mth mobile bill and fags and booze

or is it just me? 😉

but it just drives wages down.

why? please explain why putting someone on a training course lowers wages? There are plenty of activities that could be done that will not impact wages as you will not be replacing "paid" activity. Arguably you will create jobs in the infrastructure to make it work and in the childcare services for those who have kids

i tend to agree that voluntary work should be mandatory though as a general rule
we cannot train people for jobs as their are more unemployed than jobs

strange circa 1 million EU migrants have found work recently, care to explain where they magically appeared from 😉

big_n_daft - Member

grum - Member
Funny how there's never the same tabloid induced outcry about tax cheats/avoiders, wonder why?

"tell that to the head of the Student Loans Company"

What......the guy who was investigated by Exaro ?

Exaro, the online subscription service that investigates issues that are important to business in particular and to the public in general, but which are being inadequately covered – or ignored – by the mainstream media ?

That guy ?

Big and daft. working families will almost always be significnatly better off. I agree the priorities sound at best odd - however tobacco addiction is a very strong one and to refuse any "luxuries" to the unemployed is very harsh. we have a very low benefit level anyway compared to many countries.

"bread and circuses"?

have a read of Wigan Pier - while very outdated now and while being written in Orwells sometimes cringingly middle-class hand wringing style it still contains some good analysis of this issue and some difficult truths

yep him, the tabloid hysteria has the potential to nail a minister

Exaro would have had no impact if the big boys hadn't picked it up, still good effort

good bit of whistleblowing going on handing it to them on a plate though

The poor? let them eat cake

yep him

Right.......have you got his email address so I can tell him ?

BTW :

the tabloid hysteria has the potential to nail a minister

Exaro would have had no impact if the big boys hadn't picked it up, still good effort

good bit of whistleblowing going on handing it to them on a plate though

Who are these "big boys" you speak of..........the BBC and the Independent ? Seems only they are covering the story at the moment.

What tabloid are you reading big and daft ?

i as referring to free labour /working for nothing driving wages down - they will end up "working for commercial organisations for nothing so they will employ less folk or for less money- its a supply and demand thing ...would some pictures help?
I could do the same if we "trained folk" as we would have mor epoel willing ot do the work etc
PS what is this mythical "training" they all need to get work? they need jobs many of them have a "profession" what they have not got is an opportunity
I work in this area ,much of what you say sounds sensible but their is no magic bullet [ it does not work].U nless we aim for full employment we will have unemployed folk and it is aprice worth paying for controlling inflation apparently.

strange circa 1 million EU migrants have found work recently, care to explain where they magically appeared from

What tabloid are you reading big and daft ?

The [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/9054733/Chief-executive-of-Student-Loans-Company-allowed-to-avoid-40000-a-year-in-tax-by-Coalition.html ]Telegraph[/url]?

Not a tabloid then aracer ? So how does he know that the tabloids have covered the story ? According to him the story "had no impact if the big boys hadn't picked it up" Apparently they've "picked it up" ?

And why wasn't this story uncovered by one of the tabloid "investigative journalists" ? Seems peculiar, as grum says, tabloids don't appear very interested in "tax cheats/avoiders". Most bizarre 😕

I just saw this thread, read the first page and the link.....now I'm as "live and let live" as the next man, but that family is way better of than me and I work like a dog. I was on job seekers allowance at 18 for a year while I tried to get a job and have never been on it since, not even when I lost my job about 2 years ago and was truly desperate.

I'm sorry but where is the incentive to retrain, this bloke even gets his fags, telly (higher package than mine if it's costing 60 notes a month) and booze paid for.

Not wanting to get into an argument here, but apart from the self respect, who are the mugs?

have a read of Wigan Pier - while very outdated now and while being written in Orwells sometimes cringingly middle-class hand wringing style it still contains some good analysis of this issue and some difficult truths

Sorry for the tardy reply, just got up for work!
TJ: To some extent I do believe in the deserving and undeserving poor. Thats to say that EVERYONE should have the bare essentials of food, heating and lodgings, but if you have paid money in and been a net contributor in the past then that should count for something.
Junky et al: Decent minimum wage, definately a good thing, one of the best labour did and helped out one of by bruvs in particular (works in a care home). Would happily se it raised by 50p or £1 per hour. The idea though that the state can create full employment is deluded. We live in a global village and tribe UK (or is that tribe Engurland soon?) has to be competetive overall against other nation states. Within that over all competetiveness we can and should have a degree of redistribution of wealth, but the system is out of balance at the moment.

IMO theres another factor that works in favour of being on benefits, regardless of how much money is envolved, and thats peace of mind, if your in social housing your rent and council tax are always paid. But when you're a low income earner in similar housing situation the two letters you fear the most is rent arrears and council tax arrears, as those two go straight to legal action. The our council are particularly bailiff happy.

To add fuel to the fire

if your in social housing your rent and council tax are always paid.