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:£20741I 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.
(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
Great - then he will have known what he was talking about and will understand the implications of what he said, so this whole 53 quid thing will be a piece of piss.
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
I dont think I said it would be easy not did claim to be a keyboard warrior - so we both agree its possible but hard. Brilliant
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?
Is that experts like IDS or is it other experts there you are referring to? Is is it all experts etc.
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%?
yes but it is not true
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
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
THIS please
Have you got an opinion here- its a lazy uni debating class trick to just sit there and ask questions
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 - MemberUnpopular 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.
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
The previous government cut HMRC staff numbers by 30,000. This government is cutting them by 10,000 although it is increasing staff in Enforcement by 3,000.
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.
What I am keen to know what your opinion is - yes that is a real sign of weakness and avoidance in a debate..another great point
I have asked what three times now and am none the wiser - why not deny you are doing it now for extra giggles?
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.
you dont believe that for second - your an argueer[ and quite good] not an idiot. I am saying what you are doing and still answering your questions - shall I ask again for your view?
I'm doing something commonly known as "inferring", and helping you to see the logical conclusions
No you are just making stuff up - if you are inferring rather than arguing you are really rubbish at it
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.
Its not easy to get fit but the results are instant- in the sense you will notice if you excerecise and start a dedicated plan with daily excercise. You seem to think many words are synoyms when you debate for some reason
Anyway what do you think would be a good idea ?
pretty please with sugar on top etc 😛
"hammer the retired" (little bit of an appeal to emotion there)
Fair point
Now that I've answered your questions, how about you answer the ones I asked?
If i go back I loose this page so what was the question?
EDIT: I assume this
You know those are fairly vague terms, what qualifies someone as ubber (sic) rich, and what qualifies as the rich/well off?
Why sic for ubber - you think there are not ubber rich people out there? Abromovich [spell] is just getting buy like the rest of us?
yes they are vague terms, yes we could debate what the money point is but it is not that relevant for this thread. We simply need to accept that some folk are rich/well off and some folk and very very rich for the point to stand. I assume you accept this even if there is debate a[and there would be] about exactly where the threshold/line is.
So in order to be allowed to tell you that the answer to the Middle East situation isn't to give both sides nukes, I have to tell you what the answer is?
The previous government cut HMRC staff numbers by 30,000. This government is cutting them by 10,000 although it is increasing staff in Enforcement by 3,000.
Not sure where I've argued that the previous government did a great job in tackling tax evasion/avoidance so I'm not sure what the relevance of bringing that up is - I merely said that you'd have to be very naive to believe this government is really taking it seriously.
I don't see how cutting more jobs and putting more people on the dole (jobs which have been proven to actually save money) is showing that I'm wrong. 😕
So in order to be allowed to tell you that the answer to the Middle East situation isn't to give both sides nukes, I have to tell you what the answer is?
It is very much like this 😕
I shall spend today working out whether your anologies are worse than your inferences
what do you think ? [ see what i did there ] 😉
So in order to be allowed to tell you that the answer to the Middle East situation isn't to give both sides nukes, I have to tell you what the answer is?
There are only two sides and one situation in the Middle East?
Depressing because IDS probably spends more than £53 on wine with his lunch.
Do people really drink wine cheaper than that? The poor little peasants. There is so much injustice in the world today.
signed and shared
edited for double post - the cuts that were started 5 years ago has already been flagged above
Keep up.
And your point is...?
