Next time you go up a tax bracket you run the risk of earning less than you do now!

Yes, I would

I love the way anyone says anything slightly contentious to the Guardianistas on here and it’s ‘Trolling’.

It’s a perfectly reasonable argument that its a debilitating experience being taxed so much money when you have already contributed far more than most.

No, it’s that the OP seems to be incredibly ill-informed about what his taxes are spent on, despite repeated evidence. You can’t just ‘have an opinion’ that something is true, without bothering to find out if it actually is, then when shown that your opinion is factually wrong just keep repeating it anyway.

Well you can, but it makes you look quite daft. Or like a troll.

Rockape63 – Member
Next time you go up a tax bracket you run the risk of earning less than you do now!

Don’t talk rubbish.

If you factor in things like Child Benefit then it’s possible for the household total income to drop when moving up a tax bracket.

Not really no.

It’s not rubbish actually old Chap…. There is a point where you earn around 45k and earn less than someone earning less due to various factors such as child benefit etc

Someone with children?

There is a point where you earn around 45k and earn less than someone earning less due to various factors such as child benefit etc

Prove it!

Not you don’t.

The loss of cb is on a sliding scale and your tax I crease is only on the amount above the lower limit threshold. And you get extra tax relieve at 40% on pensions.

So actually old chap, you simply don’t.

Also CB has nothing to do with tax. And in all seriousness has no place in such a discussion.

aracer – Member

Not reading all of that

Pity, as you could have avoided wasting your time making a suggestion which has already been debunked.

Aaaahhh, just read a bit more and can’t see the proven arguments that debunk the idea. Please point me to them 🙂 In reality the system wouldn’t cost a huge amount more over the benefits/support already provided bearing in mind that any costs/wages are paid by the same Govt to whom taxes and nic is paid. Plus the overall reduction due to increased incentive to take a private sector job could be substantial, not to mention better health/self esteem, better example to offspring etc etc.

Can’t be arsed to read it all but i guess there will be a stack of jealous people who resnt him making more than them. Our system is blantantly unfair. those who work should be encouraged not penalised. Same tax rates for all please. why should someone who takes little pay the most? thats Sodding wrong.
those who take should pay more. with no kids I should not pay as much as those with kids. etc.
Lazy jealous ****s think otherwise.

“Can’t be arsed and don’t understand when the grown ups speak. Can’t understand math either…..”

Fixed it for you mattsccm

deepreddave – Member
“aracer – Member
Pity, as you could have avoided wasting your time making a suggestion which has already been debunked.”

Aaaahhh, just read a bit more and can’t see the proven arguments that debunk the idea. Please point me to them In reality the system wouldn’t cost a huge amount more over the benefits/support already provided bearing in mind that any costs/wages are paid by the same Govt to whom taxes and nic is paid. Plus the overall reduction due to increased incentive to take a private sector job could be substantial, not to mention better health/self esteem, better example to offspring etc etc.

One job funded by the state takes one job out of the market. How does that reduce unemployment? Workfare provides free labour for massive companies, funded by the tax payer. If there wasn’t workfare they would still need people to do these jobs but they would pay them [at least] minimum wage. This person would then have money to put into the economy. Not that difficult really.

But screw the economy lets make the scroungers work out.

Also I’d love to see your figures on how much it would cost, I’m sure they’re pretty comprehensive.

Lifer – my guess is that my figures are as comprehensive as yours 😉 given the closing of the gap between benefits v low paid employment and reduced central spending due to the recession the cost v benefit of such a scheme is increasingly favourable. In addition there are many many areas of work that benefit claimants could become involved in that are neither the jobs you’re referring to or even currently been done in these austere times. It’s also a shane you can’t see the positive benefits as I have encountered hundreds of people for whom leaving benefits simply isn’t sufficiently financially beneficial compared to their quality of life on benefits. What do you suggest to incentivise/help these people beyond an unviable higher minimum wage?

deepreddave – Member
Lifer – my guess is that my figures are as comprehensive as yours

My figures for what? A claim that you made?

given the closing of the gap between benefits v low paid employment and reduced central spending due to the recession the cost v benefit of such a scheme is increasingly favourable

According to you, but I don’t agree, for the reasons given above.

In addition there are many many areas of work that benefit claimants could become involved in that are neither the jobs you’re referring to or even currently been done in these austere times

Such as?

It’s also a shane you can’t see the positive benefits as I have encountered hundreds of people for whom leaving benefits simply isn’t sufficiently financially beneficial compared to their quality of life on benefits.

Find me one example in history where workfare has actually worked in reducing unemployment and/or the benefit bill. Can I ask where you’ve encountered these hundreds?

What do you suggest to incentivise/help these people beyond an unviable higher minimum wage?

Why is a higher minimum wage unviable? It would mean a simpler tax system as if employers paid a living wage the state doesn’t need to subsidise it with housing benefit, income support, tax credits etc. Plus I don’t need a solution as I don’t think a problem exists (except the erosion of a benefits system we should be proud of).

Workfare provides free labour for massive companies, funded by the tax payer. If there wasn’t workfare they would still need people to do these jobs

So, you would presumably have no ethical objection to ‘workfare’ if the jobs were done entirely for the benefit of the wider community – such as basic cleaning in hospitals, litter picking in public parks, conservation work (the people currently doing this can supervise/oversee so its zero sum gain on the jobs/expenses side of things, but they now have a much greater workforce)

rattrap – Member
Workfare provides free labour for massive companies, funded by the tax payer. If there wasn’t workfare they would still need people to do these jobs
So, you would presumably have no ethical objection to ‘workfare’ if the jobs were done entirely for the benefit of the wider community – such as basic cleaning in hospitals, litter picking in public parks, conservation work (the people currently doing this can supervise/oversee so its zero sum gain on the jobs/expenses side of things, but they now have a much greater workforce)

You presume wrong.

It’s not the ethics I have a problem with FFS. It’s the maths.

We have 5 cleaners in a hospital. They’re replaced by 5 workfare ‘volunteers’. Do you think the cleaning company will keep on the 5 original cleaners to provide 1 on 1 supervision? Or will the person who supervised the 5 original cleaners now be supervising 5 workfare claimants while 5 ex-cleaners look for work and the cleaning company’s profits increase by 5 people’s salaries?

Only about 40% of hospitals use contract cleaners, so thats your first ‘jumped to conclusion’ shot down.

So, back to the point – if that was the case (no loss of existing, but they were used to train and oversee, so you end up with more) would you have a problem with people working for their benefits or not?

rattrap – Member
Only about 40% of hospitals use contract cleaners, so thats your first ‘jumped to conclusion’ shot down.

Ouch, what a major rebuttal. Except it doesn’t change the scenario. Why would an NHS Trust (right this time?) use money from their budget to keep on 5 cleaners as supervisors to workfare claimants when they will already have a supervisor for the 5 cleaners, who they can now ‘get rid of’?

So, back to the point – if that was the case (no loss of existing, but they were used to train and oversee, so you end up with more) would you have a problem with people working for their benefits or not?

Most people receiving benefits do work, but require benefits because minimum wage is not a living wage.

Why would an NHS Trust (right this time?) use money from their budget to keep on 5 cleaners as supervisors to workfare claimants when they will already have a supervisor for the 5 cleaners?

Because they do what the people who provide their budget tell them to, so if the government made that the rule, would you support it, or not?

If there’s a job give them a job.

Take 15 minutes to listen to this:

IDS can’t defend workfare

Pretty difficult to come away from that with the impression that workfare is nothing but posturing.

It has never worked in reducing unemployment and has always cost more to administer than JSA/equivalents, if it was such a great policy why have other countries tried it and abandoned it?

ICan’t be arsed to read it all but i guess there will be a stack of jealous people who resnt him making more than them.

well they say other reasons for why it is unfair but I suspect you wont believe them

Our system is blantantly unfair. those who work should be encouraged not penalised.

iirc the op gets a bit mor e money that a benefot claimant so job done

Same tax rates for all please.

Ok same wages for all please

why should someone who takes little pay the most? thats Sodding wrong.

Its because they have the most to give and they understand their moral responsibility to the leat well of in society

those who take should pay more.

How exactly will prisoners raise the money to pay for thei “care” this could get tricky – perhaps we could put them inprison for not paying then fine them again?? This is how well thought out your ideas are

with no kids I should not pay as much as those with kids.

Seems strange that such a warm . thoughtful and engaing person as you has not met someone willing to bear their children.

In addition there are many many areas of work that benefit claimants could become involved in that are neither the jobs you’re referring to or even currently been done in these austere times.

I would support voluntary work to make a better society – however it is not that surprising that thos eleft on the margins of cosiety have little interest in working to make it a better place

It’s also a shane you can’t see the positive benefits as I have encountered hundreds of people for whom leaving benefits simply isn’t sufficiently financially beneficial compared to their quality of life on benefits.

Ar eyou saying wages are so low that the bare minimum the state decress you need to be on the poverty line is about what you will get on th eminimum wage – THAT IS SHOCKING

What do you suggest to incentivise/help these people beyond an unviable higher minimum wage?

I remeber when the employers told us the minimum wage was unaffordable now its a higher one that is unaffordable

Can you use Mc Donalds and their UK based profits to explain why they cannot pay above the minimum wage? Could you explain why we should subsidise their employment [ via working tax credits]

re cleaning a hospital I would rather leave it in the hands of a professional who has a job and may get sacked if they do it badly than make an anthropology graduate, a recently redundant builder, the ex army major person with no interest in cleaning clean hospitals.
Its not about helping them or about making a better society it is about tax payers feeling like they get thier moneys worth out of them.
Perhaps we could make them wear special uniforms with a badge on so we can tell who they are in every day life?

if there’s a job give them a job.

“Dear Chief Secretary. I’m afraid there is no money. Kind regards – and good luck! Liam.”

No actual response to my points then?

I’ll respond to your points when you’ve answered my earlier simple question on whether you would support workfare on that basis…

On the basis that you think there is work that needs doing but are too selfish to pay for it to be done?

Talk about a sense of entitlement.

Forcing benefit claimants to work would certainly be a good thing for lots of people in society.

Not for my dad though, litter picking would be tough, what with his arthritic knees and all.

On the basis that you think there is work that needs doing but are too selfish to pay for it to be done?

Ok same wages for all please

Something heading even remotely in this direction would solve many many many problems, where’s that wealth distribution graph when you need it.

There was enough money to cut the top rate of tax.

@rattrap

Surely Labour were simply giving a brief summing up of the situation caused by greedy bankers, and the people actually having a laugh were the bankers themselves ?

The biggest joke being the now well established “reward for failure” joke.

There’s plenty of money in the country. It’s just in the wrong hands.

rattrap – Member
I’ll respond to your points when you’ve answered my earlier simple question on whether you would support workfare on that basis…

No, if there’s a job give them a job.

I don’t understand why JSA is seen as such a massive problem?

The biggest joke being the now well established “reward for failure” joke.

Like Andy Burnham?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/16/ignored-nhs-hospital-warning-claims

Doing alright for himself considering the last person in the NHS who killed that many was called Harold Shipman…

Like Andy Burnham?

I’m not sure what your link, which you undoubtedly searched frantically for, has to do with “reward for failure” Z-11, but you should know better than expect me to defend the less than honest tories in New Labour.

Yes of course New Labour behaved appallingly whilst in government, precisely because they enthusiastically adopted the disastrous neo-liberal policies which you are so supportive of.

The only thing in New Labour’s 13 years in power which I give them any sort of credit for, was the direction they took when confronted the global credit crises. The speed which they temporarily abandon neo-liberalism and adopt basic keynesian solutions, in the much the same way as George Bush did, was quite remarkable. The consequences were considerably less misery for ordinary people, less unemployment etc, a higher deficit, and increased popularity – the Conservatives went from having a 22% lead and certain victory before the credit crises, to failing to win the general election after 2 years of Labour’s handling of the global crises.

I think some people need to learn where the money goes. I work every day for local and national government, the waste is just astounding. I personally blew the best part of a million this year providing something that they decided they didn’t want after all, we got paid, they got nothing.

This happens everyday everywhere, and thats before you get to the big ticket items. Anyone for a nimrod, fired off a catapult perhaps? £4Bn down the tube for nothing, it goes on and on and on.

Arguing about Mrs Miggins and her spare bedroom “tax” is just a front, it keeps people away from the bigger issues.

£4bn you say? More than the entire employment and support allowance budget.

But it’s these bloody scroungers that are the problem.

What narks me is the proportion of my tax/NI/VAT/fuel duty etc that Gideon has spunked up the wall on his mismanagement of UK plc. And the right-wing press trying to blame the less fortunate in our society for it.

Bah