[Closed] this Iain Duncan Smith petition, whos signed it?

On this morning's Today Programme David Bennett, a market trader, said that after his housing benefit had been cut, he lives on £53 per week.

What is he selling on the market then, dog poo? He may want to consider a career change.

I was thinking that, must be fairly crap at it too....

I'd rather see a few of STW live on £53/week first.

What is he selling on the market then, dog poo?

Why do say that - because the cost of living, including housing, is very cheap in the UK ?

Signed. At 95K-ish now.

Me. And I 'shared' it heavily, too. It doesn't even have to be about politics - he said he would, so he should. Simples.

Don't have a clue how to enforce it, sadly...

wow good stw response, personally have no idea what a market trader earns but cant imagine its very much!

fwiw my JSA- 70 quid a week doesnt go very far!

Market trader=cash=minimal/no tax, I've known a few and none of them were skint.

IDS is a tit.

It's been a while since I've seen the "Well get a ****ing better job then" response. It's almost refreshing. 🙂

I can't see what it will achieve to be honest. Even now a department of civil servants is working out exactly how the money will be spent.

It's not as if he'll just hold his hands up and say 'sorry it can't be done'

Depressing because IDS probably spends more than £53 on wine with his lunch.

It's not as if he'll just hold his hands up and say 'sorry it can't be done'

You don't think this government is capable of carrying out an abrupt U turn ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/31/coalition-u-turns-full-list

Unpopular taxes have often been reversed, from the Poll Tax to the Pasty Tax.

"Politics of envy"? If anything, the exact opposite. I doubt most people support the petition because of their own politics of envy but because IDS's politics is the politics of complete ignorance and non-empathy. I'm guessing most signatories are simply fed up with the government's bullshit rhetoric of victimisation and its shamelessly brutal assault on vulnerable people, and simply want to kick bricks out of their stinking ivory tower and would dearly love to see one of the sanctimonious, pious little gobshites fall out and see what it's like on the ground.

</rant>

It's not politics of envy- he's behind the benefit cuts and said on live tv he could live on that amount per week.
Its not like the petition will have any impact on the policy, but hopefully it'll publicly humiliate him and help highlight how isolated he is from real poverty.
Does make me wonder what treats the condems will pull out the bag before the next election to try and get themselves re-elected. Not that they actually were in the first place tho!

Required reading: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/08/24/65000-hate-crimes-against-disabled-people-and-rising-this-has-to-stop/

Not saying IDS is right, but I could easily live on that. 🙂

Ignoring the fact that sobriety would turn me insane, of course. 😆

What the petition asks is pretty unworkable once you factor in expenses and whatever it is MP's get subsidised these days. (what help does he/doesn'the get for commuting in from greater london as opposed to having a second home near westminster?) I expect that £53 a week will go unexpectedly far for anyone that well connnected. Plus like cabinet ministers of all flavours, I bet he hasn't paid for a meal in a restaurant for a wee while. 😉

Nevertheless I added my name to it.

I don't know whether IDS doesn't understand the impact of the cuts, or doesn't care- he seems like less of a **** than many, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's ignorant rather than a bawbag. But either way it works- either get some grasp of what it's like, or get hit with his own stick.

Edwina Currie's just been on the Today programme and said that IDS is probably more likely to be able to live on £53 a week than most people given that he was unemployed for a long time after leaving the Army.

If that is true, and most other stuff is paid for as part of "benefits", then it would be interesting to find out what would happen.

Did anyone actually set out rules? Is the £53 quid after housing, etc?

Edwina Currie's just been on the Today programme and said that IDS is probably more likely to be able to live on £53 a week than most people given that he was unemployed for a long time after leaving the Army.

I'd still like to see him try...

He does like to help the unemployed back into work. Who can forget when he gave his wife a taxpayer-funded job as his secretary?

I just have 2 points to add to this thread:

1. Around 63% of the population are net recipients from the state I.e. take more in tax credits and benefits than they themselves pay in tax. Given that government spending is still not at a sustainable level, the only alternative to cuts is for many of the 63% to pay a lot more in tax. So of the many who have signed the petition - how willing are you to pay more tax to offset a cancellation of the benefit changes?

2. IDS probably knows his brief better than many government ministers past or present - he's been studying poverty and its causes in detail for at least the last 15 years, quite possibly longer and up until now has been generally recognised for being extremely knowledgeable, compassionate and willing to focus on the real root cause rather than the direct causes - even peers from other parties and charities working with the poor have recognised this.

Having read a lot of the work he's done in this area ( which most haven't) it's clear to me that the convenient and predictable characterisation of him as a toff does him a grave diss-service and runs the risk of a change in minister that would simply maintain the status quo in the benefits system so just delaying reform and continuing to perpetuate the unfairness currently built in to it.

According to wiki :

Military service

He was commissioned into the Scots Guards as a second lieutenant on 28 June 1975. He was assigned the service number 500263. He was promoted to lieutenant on 28 June 1977. He was moved to the Regular Army Reserve of Officers on 2 April 1981, signalling his retirement from the military.
His six-year service including spells in Northern Ireland and Rhodesia, where he served as aide-de-camp to Major-General Sir John Acland
Other work

Upon leaving the Scots Guards, Duncan Smith spent a period applying for jobs and claiming unemployment benefit, during which he joined the Conservative Party.
He took up employment at GEC-Marconi in 1981, selling armaments. He then moved to property firm Bellwinch, but was made redundant after six months. He then joined Jane's Information Group, initially selling gun-related magazines, eventually rising to the operational board.

And he comes from a well off family background, so yeah.....i'd like to see the wnaker live off £53 a week.

And he comes from a well off family background,

Well that's it, hang the mofo.

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/iain-duncan-smiths-53-a-week-diary-2013040264369 ]the mash[/url]

signed and shared

The point i was making was i bet he's never been sent round to his grans house to get his tea coz his parents never had enough £ to feed him, i imagine he was brought up in a household where heat and food and the ability to pay for basic amenities was taken for granted.

Politics is a rich mans game whilst career politicians are bred at a young age, of course there is a few exceptions to this rule but once you get involved in modern party politics you soon realise that it is necessary to toe the party line as there is no place in modern politics to be outspoken or independent of thought.

I just have 2 points to add to this thread:
1. Around 63% of the population are net recipients from the state I.e. take more in tax credits and benefits than they themselves pay in tax

Care to quote a source on that? Not saying you're wrong, but I find that hard to believe, and would like to see a source, ONS, etc

The great Mr P has this one covered:

“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time [u]and would still have wet feet.[/u]

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms

Politics is a rich mans game whilst career politicians are bred at a young age, of course there is a few exceptions to this rule

And IDS seems to be one of them with a six year stint in the army, a spell on the dole, a couple of private sector jobs, redundancy etc etc. That was from your Wiki quote BTW.

thekingisdead:

I can't find the article I read but the figures on this BBC page are broadly similar:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966

but the majority of the benefits bill 2/3rds? is pensioners and as they are big voters funnily enough pensions have been untouched

limiting benefits is fine but wages are falling in real terms, travel costs , fuel bills, food bills are all rising there a chronic housing shortage, not enough jobs and the government has failed to address any of these before attacking the worst off

PhilO has hit the nail on the head.. well done Mr Pratchett, the scribe of our time

IDS may have been on the dole.. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that he may have been a benefits cheat at that time

How much extra support did IDS get from the trust funds etc bestowed upon him by the long line of military Captains that he's descended from..?

Unpopular taxes have often been reversed, from the Poll Tax to the Pasty Tax.

Is that a bad thing?

How much do you think military Captains get paid?

Enough to leave their kids a trust fund?

FWIW - I lived on £35 a week for three years as a student, allowing for inflation I reckon I could get by on £54 if I needed to - OK, we're not talking luxury, but is that what benefits are supposed to be for (and to be fair, IDS isn't under 25, so he or I would be on £71 per week - £307 per month after rent and council tax, I'd be willing to bet there's a few people on here getting by on not much more than that!)

don't think the ONS can add up ! 😕

didn't realise the TV licence was variable dependent on your income percentile

Television licences 112 113 104 110 115 118 121 131 131 138 119

It seems loads of people are signing it and just wait till midday when the students and people on the dole wake up!

How much do you think military Captains get paid?

Enough to leave their kids a trust fund?

a bit more than £57 a week

I'd be willing to bet there's a few people on here getting by on not much more than that!

guilty

The mash article though exaggerated (I hope three courses at the house of commons is a little bit more like what it costs elsewherein westminster, and I hope atos sometimes slum it in £100 a cover restaurants) still has a useful point to make about the viability of the 'challenge':

Sunday: Final day. Secretly borrow a fiver from old woman who lives downstairs. Use it to buy delicious three course lunch at House of Commons restaurant. That evening the lovely people from ATOS take me to Savoy Grill for dinner.

Should have just done this every day. Would have been a piece of piss.

Also how would you adjust for realistic housing payments, over-the-top keycard meter energy payments and so on. I am confident that given his family and support network, IDS's life on the dole was absolutely nothing like it is for most people. I have a friend who is a PHd's up university lecturer now, and yet claimed JSA for a few months between phd finishing and his first job: his standard of living was nothing like as poor as most claimants.

[edit]

and to be fair, IDS isn't under 25, so he or I would be on £71 per week

[double edit] ah, under Humprys duress, he answered the question of £53 a week with "If i had to I would." Nicely ambiguous reply...

I reckon he genuinely believes he could get by on £53 a week, quite easily.

However, once he discovers that he actually has to buy meals, transport, moat cleaning services and duck houses out of his own pocket, as opposed to just bunging it on his taxpayer funded expense account, it might provoke a re-think

Did he say he could live on benefits, or did he say he could live on £53 a week?

Fair enough, however thats £230 per month after housing & council tax, and accounting for travel to work expenses etc, I'd be willing to bet there's still a few on here getting by on not a lot more than that.

I'd be willing to bet there's still a few on here getting by on not a lot more than that.

guilty

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/iain-duncan-smiths-53-a-week-diary-2013040264369 ]iain-duncan-smiths-53-a-week-diary[/url]

The IPSA figures for IDS so seem to suggest he's pretty frugal compared to other MPs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/sep/07/full-list-mps-expenses-ipsa-data-interactive

In 2011/12 he spent:
Accomodation: £0
Constituency office: £19368
Constitency Rental: £0
General Admin Spend: £743
Misc Spend: £0
Staffing Spend: £0
Travel and Meals: £629
Total Spend:£20741

I guess that doesn't fit with the prevailing perception of a toff splashing tax payers money on second homes, duck houses and flying round the world but then again when did facts get in the way of a good STW discussion? 😉

Aside of the fact he's a millionaire. Who would blow £50 on a bottle of plonk.

guess that doesn't fit with the prevailing perception of a toff splashing tax payers money on second homes, duck houses and flying round the world but then again when did facts get in the way of a good STW discussion?

that doesn't seem to take into account any of his personal spending - food, bills, socialising, schooling, childcare

you know, normal stuff that normal folk have to pay out for

I'm not saying that he's living a rock n roll lifestyle.. just that he doesn't understand the reality of his 53 quid per week claim

he's behind the benefit cuts and said on live tv he could live on that amount per week.

Given that government spending is still not at a sustainable level, the only alternative to cuts is for many of the 63% to pay a lot more in tax

probably knows his brief better than many government ministers past or present

up until now has been generally recognised for being extremely knowledgeable, [b]compassionate[/b]

Having read a lot of the work he's done in this area ( which most haven't)

Aye it is hard to tell which is greatest his compassion or his knowledge WHAT A GUY

To be fair to IDS I think he does genuinely want to change the system for the bette rbut the Tory way is always to hammer the poor as if this will incentivise them to work every time I hear them speak I just want to ask "what ****ing jobs" hammering the poor when there are no actual jobs to take and yor policies do nothing to address this, beyond punishing the lazy and ****less - for it is their fault they dont work rather than market economics- makes you a **** in my book all be it a well meaning one.

Living on <£60 for ONE week wouldn't be that difficult. You'd just fill the cupboards up with food, make sure the gas and electricity cards were well topped up etc etc. But when you've got that much week after week after week and you've got the cheap boot problem mentioned above it becomes a lot harder.

In 2011/12 he spent:
Accomodation: £0
Constituency office: £19368
Constitency Rental: £0
General Admin Spend: £743
Misc Spend: £0
Staffing Spend: £0
Travel and Meals: £629
Total Spend:£20741

I guess that doesn't fit with the prevailing perception of a toff splashing tax payers money on second homes, duck houses and flying round the world but then again when did facts get in the way of a good STW discussion?

That's very selective of you. So his expenses costs were £20741, the year AFTER the expenses scandal broke, and their little wheezes had been stopped. Prior to that his expenses were:

2008/2009 = £98,077
2007/2008 = £112,905
2006/2007 = £104,339
2005/2006 = £106,076
2004/2005 = £116,922
2003/2004 = £104,222
2002/2003 = £113,367
2001/2002 = £86,536

Not to mention that this is of course on top of his £134,565 annual salary. He's cost us quite a bit. You could even justify a perception of a toff splashing tax payers money on second homes, duck houses and flying round the world 😉

Didn't some Tory MP in the 80s basically do this, i.e. claim that it was possible to live on the amount that the dole gave you, and proved it (or atr least attempted to prove it) by doing so for a week?

policies do nothing to address this, beyond punishing the lazy and ****less - for it is their fault they dont work

Well, to be fair, 878,000 have chosen not to continue their claim for disability.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9963012/900000-choose-to-come-off-sickness-benefit-ahead-of-tests.html

(note, dropped the claim, not been tested by ATOS, actually dropped the claim rather than go through with the medical)

Ian Duncan Smith - healed more sick than Jesus!

never mind cheap boots - kids clothes, toys, books, bills, childcare, schooling, travel expenses (running a car 😯 ) replacing household items..

The reality of this "Bedroom Tax" is it will hit some very hard, my mother who on a single pension of £107 a week and lives in a small 2 bed bungalow. The spare room is often used by family visiting her and staying over night. She is mostly house bound and would need a one bedded bungalow which dont exist in the area.

2. we tax the ubber rich more
3. We reduce some benefits to the rich/well off.

You know those are fairly vague terms, what qualifies someone as ubber (sic) rich, and what qualifies as the rich/well off? I think that a lot of people might get a nasty surprise to find themselves included in such groups.

As has been pointed out, around 60% of the population are net beneficiaries of the tax system. Perhaps something should be done to reduce that number to a more equtitable 50%?

you lack imagination how about
1. we reduce tax avoidance
2. we tax the ubber rich more
3. We reduce some benefits to the rich/well off.

1. Yeah - every government says they're going to do that when they come in, however they tend to find it's harder than a keyboard warrior might think
2. By increasing the highest rate of tax? Something which all studies tend to suggest actually leads to a decrease in tax revenue.
3. You want to stop SAS from having a bus pass? Apart from the fact the relatively small amount of money saved is likely to be mostly swallowed up in the admin, you don't agree with the experts on the advantages of universal benefits?

You lack realism.

These include the figures on incapacity benefit. As well as the 878,300 who chose to drop their claims, another 837,000 who did take the a medical test were found to be fit to work immediately, while a further 367,300 were judged able to some level of work.

How many of them have managed to find a job I wonder?

1. Yeah - every government says they're going to do that when they come in, however they tend to find it's harder than a keyboard warrior might think

'Keyboard warrior'? Oh dear. And yes very hard when you lack the inclination to do it because you'd rather blame the poor for everything, and not antagonise your mass tax-avoiding party donors.

2. By increasing the highest rate of tax? Something which all studies tend to suggest actually leads to a decrease in tax revenue.

'All studies'? Really? Pretty sure I read even the Tories were only claiming the 50p tax rate hadn't brought in as much as planned, not that it resulted in losses.

As has been pointed out, around 60% of the population are net beneficiaries of the tax system. Perhaps something should be done to reduce that number to a more equtitable 50%?

I'd like to suggest a society with far less wealth disparity. No, not communism. But somewhere where it pays to work because the available wages aren't so god damned awful for the low paid.

I signed. But after a week on benefits, I think IDS should clean toilets for minimum wage.

The reality of this "Bedroom Tax" is it will hit some very hard, my mother who on a single pension of £107 a week and lives in a small 2 bed bungalow.

If she's over state pension age, then it won't affect her!

This is one of the biggest drawbacks of the hysteria - its made people terrified they'll be affected when they're not.

[i]Didn't some Tory MP in the 80s basically do this, i.e. claim that it was possible to live on the amount that the dole gave you, and proved it (or atr least attempted to prove it) by doing so for a week? [/i]

Matthew Parris, but he also later admitted he'd cheated.

And everyone can do it for a week/month - but its when you need something as basic as new shoes/jeans that screws your budget.

'Keyboard warrior'? Oh dear.

My apologies - so you and Junky are actually doing something active to decrease tax avoidance, rather than just complaining about it on an internet forum?

2. IDS probably knows his brief better than many government ministers past or present - he's been studying poverty and its causes in detail for at least the last 15 years

When I was made redundant a couple of years back I went into the jobcentre, having paid my taxes & NI contributions. Fill in the forms, only to be told that as my wife works (although take home was less than monthly expenditure) I wasn't entitled to any benefit. We did get a few pence (literally) knocked off the council tax bill...which I had to re-pay when I started work again, as they said they had calculated across the year. Admin to re-claim cost more than what I had received.
Living off £53 for a week...not a problem when IDS will have well stocked cupboards, fridge, wine rack (cellar?) etc. Most could manage for a week, but week in, week out, covering not just your food, but the expected (usual range of monthly bills for utilities etc) & unexpected bills are another matter (cars, kids, clothing, travel etc).
I don't suppose IDS has ever sat in the cold because he couldn't afford heating? Many do.

Well, to be fair, 878,000 have chosen not to continue their claim for disability.

Don't forget that some of the people who 'dropped' a claim only did so because they died of the thing that Atos said wasn't wrong with them.

Then there are the people who are unable to work because of a relatively short term illness, so they simply got better before the medical (re-)check. And then there are the bed bound people who are unable to attend an appointment because....they're bed bound but Atos say if you don't attend then you lose your benefit.

And then if you do attend and get told that you're faking it then there's a 30% chance if you go it alone that the decision will be overturned, or you could get advice from the CAB and there's an 80% chance that the appeal will find that you'll have been wrongly declared fit...

Of course there are people playing the system, and that should be treated as the fraud that it is.

When talking about benefits it's wrong to focus almost solely on the sick and unemployed imo, since they don't claim most benefits. People who are working and pensioners are the real 'drains' on the benefits system.

I do lack realism none of that would at all be possible not at all - thanks for the reality check on all that

Bless you for your re education as to what is possible

right lets hammer the poor then it is the only way to get money- we wont get it from the rich ...what was I thinking off 😳

1. Yeah - every government says they're going to do that when they come in, however they tend to find it's harder than a keyboard warrior might think

2. By increasing the highest rate of tax? Something which all studies tend to suggest actually leads to a decrease in tax revenue.

All studies tend to suggest - wow you certainly seem confident there and you googled hard for that then - that is just not true the evidence fo the Laffer curve is at best inconclusive either way but you need TJ for that particular debate- its obvious 0 % gets none but i am not sure 100% gets none [ never tried as far as I am aware. The optimum rate for tax gain is , to say the least , highly debatable.

3. You want to stop SAS from having a bus pass? Apart from the fact the relatively small amount of money saved is likely to be mostly swallowed up in the admin, you don't agree with the experts on the advantages of universal benefits?

Its a slow day in work for me but, honestly, I find it hard to believe you think these things cannot be done you just dont want them to be done. that is fine but better to defend why you think this rather than claim that taxing more and avoiding tax avoidance is "unreal"

around 60% of the population are net beneficiaries of the tax system. Perhaps something should be done to reduce that number to a more equtitable 50%?

I have no problem targetting the wealthy retired tbh but they seem to be untouchable

I dont think I said it would be easy

So you accept it's not going to be an immediate alternative to cuts or increased taxation?

the Laffer curve is at best inconclusive either way but you need TJ for that particular debate- its obvious 0 % gets none but i am not sure 100% gets none [ never tried as far as I am aware. The optimum rate for tax gain is , to say the least , highly debatable.

So you accept it's not going to be an immediate alternative to cuts or increased taxation?

Is that experts like IDS or is it other experts there you are referring to? Is is it all experts etc.

Well I was thinking of Lord Beveridge, but couldn't be bothered to google - you reckon you know better than him about social benefits?

I find it hard to believe you think these things cannot be done you just dont want them to be done. that is fine but better to defend why you think this rather than claim that taxing more and avoiding tax avoidance is "unreal"

Why do you find it so hard to believe? All the evidence suggests I'm right about tax avoidance, given there seems no obvious reason not to reduce it if it was possible.

yunki keeps claiming poverty but it seems hes knocking these out on the side

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/fs-life-size-david-cameron-cardboard-cutout

My apologies - so you and Junky are actually doing something active to decrease tax avoidance, rather than just complaining about it on an internet forum?

So what are you doing other than complaining about people complaining about it on an internet forum.

Just blithely accepting whatever happens in the name of 'realism'. This government has cut funding to the people that go after tax evasion, funding which has been shown to earn back more money than it costs. But hey, thinking that's a poor move just makes you a 'keyboard warrior' I suppose.

I will be voting for a party that seems to take tax evasion seriously - what else do you suggest?

Why do you find it so hard to believe? All the evidence suggests I'm right about tax avoidance, given there seems no obvious reason not to reduce it if it was possible.

Apart from the fact that David Cameron's dad and some of the Tory party's main funders are some of the worst culprits. 🙄

but better to defend why you think

So you accept it's not going to be an immediate alternative to cuts or increased taxation?

Why do you keep saying things I did not say ? Seems a bit a silly

Seeing as you dont want a debate lets just keep it silly then

My view may be more up to date and current than the 40 years dead peer about modern britain but yes we cannot be sure so good point - no really it is 🙄 he also wanted a flat rate charge for it - I assume you agree with everything he said etc

Ay well we could have debated but lets just have a clash of big hitters and see whao has the biggest antlers as we passionately rut 😉

aracer - Member

Unpopular taxes have often been reversed, from the Poll Tax to the Pasty Tax.

Is that a bad thing?

😀 No, I wouldn't have thought so. Why do you ask aracer ?

Well the alternative is that you think it's a good thing, and my political compass is starting to spin given you appear to be referring to Conservative led governments.

These include the figures on incapacity benefit. As well as the 878,300 who chose to drop their claims, another 837,000 who did take the a medical test were found to be fit to work immediately, while a further 367,300 were judged able to some level of work.

Might I add that these figures also appear only to take into account the initial rejection of benefits. There are many who have successfully appealed. I can see that those who are housebound have already been mentioned above.

Story I'm aware of;
Local office to attend interview...no parking, office on 2nd floor, no lift!!
Person attending had meningitis, both sets of inner ear nerves killed, so permanent & irrepairable damage. Think vertigo, but much worse & permanent! Initially asked to sit in swivel chair...husband quickly swaps chairs, knowing result if she sits on a swivel chair. Interviewer clearly no understanding of medical history & just see's a "normal" looking person, missing all signs of gripping chair edges just to stay upright (stress adds to symptoms). Letter comes stating fit to work. Initial contact to appeal...they suggest possible lines of work - none of which safe. Cannot use computer - scrolling of screen sufficient to cause attack, standing - any bump enough to send sprawling, or turning around too quickly, or change in ambient light. Can't use public transport, as they're often on the move before seated...another fall.

This is someone who can "manage" their lifestyle & avoid situations that cause problems, but in all reality cannot return to the workplace. There are far worse cases, where people with serious disabilities with need for daily care just to eat & wash are told they are fit to work & have benefits stopped.
We'd all love to pay less tax...but at least get it right. What is the cost in admin to administer this & many other flawed bureaucratic functions within government. Agreed, hit those who are fraudulently claiming...but don't assume all are guilty immediately.

.... my political compass is starting to spin given you appear to be referring to Conservative led governments.

No of course "Conservative led governments" occasionally do the correct thing !

Usually it involves reversing their stupid ideas 🙂

Have you got an opinion here- its a lazy uni debating class trick to just sit there and ask questions

Throwing accusations like that back in my direction seems to be something you're quite keen on when you don't like the questions I've asked. I'm not sure how it makes my points invalid because I haven't expressed a complete opinion on the situation. If anybody is using a lazy debating trick here, it's not me.

Why do you keep saying things I did not say ?

I'm doing something commonly known as "inferring", and helping you to see the logical conclusions. If "I dont think I said it would be easy", and that "The optimum rate for tax gain is , to say the least , highly debatable.", then by inference neither are immediate ways of increasing tax take.

Anyway, back to the original point.

Yes, I've signed it as I don't believe that he has any concept of existing on such a small amount of cash. Let's not forget that this is not only to feed yourself but also to provide other luxuries like clothing and transport. If you are going for interviews then I would assume that being smartly turned out will be a distinct advantage. Spare cash to get to the interviews would also be useful. Assuming that you are not running a car on that and would be attending more than one interview a week.

Oh, and there is also the small matter of which jobs are they applying for?

39.6 percent of these households received more in benefits than they paid in taxes in 2010/11
if we include the retired - and out of interest how mcuh do you wish to hammer them? it rises to 53.4 %

I have no problem targetting the wealthy retired tbh but they seem to be untouchable

Well as usual with satatistics they can be made to say whatever anyone wants depending on how the calculations are done. Does that 39.6% include all state provided beneifits (e.g. healthcare, education and other services) or is it just cash benefits?

Yes I would include the retired, to not include them seems perverse. As for how much to "hammer the retired" (little bit of an appeal to emotion there) in terms of income I wouldn't treat them any differently to those in work. Now that I've answered your questions, how about you answer the ones I asked?

can't figure out how to quote but Grum's post states:

"This government has cut funding to the people that go after tax evasion, funding which has been shown to earn back more money than it costs. "

This is not actually true - HMRC received an additional £77m investment last year and are hiring a team of 300 specialists to work in this area last year. Further measures were announced in the run up to the most recent budget.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_117_12.htm

I thought IDS said he could survive on £53 if he had to. Obviously possible because the individual they were talking about said he was surviving on this amount.

The 'Big Society' is the answer.

This is not actually true - HMRC received an additional £77m investment last year and are hiring a team of 300 specialists to work in this area last year. Further measures were announced in the run up to the most recent budget.

Hmmm....

Job cuts among revenue officials meant £1.1 billion less unpaid tax was recouped than could have been, a public spending watchdog said.

The influential public accounts committee praised an HM Revenue and Customs crackdown which has brought in an extra £4.32 billion in five years - 11 times what it cost.

But it said the decision to axe 3,300 posts at the same time appeared to have undermined its effectiveness and urged caution over further reductions.

"We are not convinced that the decision to reduce staff numbers working in this area in the past represented value for money for the taxpayer," it said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/11bn-less-tax-recouped-after-hm-revenue-and-customs-job-cuts-7784538.html

It's really very naive to believe this government takes this issue seriously - when they are largely funded by some of the worst offenders.

I don't believe the income and tax figures of a market trader any more than those claimed by an MP.

What is the cost in admin to administer this & many other flawed bureaucratic functions within government. Agreed, hit those who are fraudulently claiming...but don't assume all are guilty immediately.

FWIW, although the ATOS testing was extremely traumatic and financially almost impossible to manage whilst benefits were suspended, the system eventually worked in the favour of an immediate family member that was ATOS tested

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/11bn-less-tax-recouped-after-hm-revenue-and-customs-job-cuts-7784538.html

Your point might be more valid if the report didn't look at a period which fell predominately under the previous government.

Your point might be more valid if there weren't plans to cut 10,000 HMRC jobs by 2014/15.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18575439