The lines between the "scroungers" and those who genuinely need and are looking for work are far far more blurred than a lot of people seem to think, many seem to think that there is an easily identifiable group who can be pointed out as the shirkers and the scroungers, and as a result a lot of people tend to get lumped in to the same negative group for little to no reason. For an example, those NLA saw lounging in the park in the summer with their 80 quid shirts and 200 quid phones could well have booked taht week off work after working hard the other 363 days a year. That said he could as well have been a 'scrounger' who was laughing at how he was being paid more than some hard workers to lounge on the grass. And i'm sure im not the only one who finds it interesting to find
Personally, I like the fact that we have a benefits system that is their to support you and me in case of a disaster, especially considering economic disasters like this tend to hit upon the lower-earners the hardest. I certainly prefer this system to the one in America where you're left to rot if you can't get a foot on the ladder.
But it is not ok to abuse those benefits that we should be happy to have, as far as im concerned to abuse those benefits is to stick your middle finger up at those who pay for those benefits.
My point is, the line's are a lot more blurred than a lot seem to accept or believe and that its a bloody difficult thing to figure out whose 'scrounging' off benefits and whose scrounging to survive. I personally dislike this government, but I agree the benefit culture needs to be tackled and at least they'll give it a shot. I'll go and read up on this new policy now to see if I think its as ridiculous as some of their others
It's very hard to say when you listen to the harrowing stories like red had last year
And I find it very difficult to accept that the lady On the news said due to the tax credit and family allowance changes that she is now considering going on the dole to be able to continue to stay the same level of life
Something is wrong somewhere that that is the better option
I've got an idea. The government should set up a voluntary fund and all those that are able & willing to pay into it, to provide extra benefits for others can do so. That way, we don't increase the debt, we don't increase taxes & only those happy to pay the extra do so.
The benefit system has been up the creek for a number of years and this new policy by the government will never change that. As far as I am concerned the governments have completely failed on this.
You call these people lazy but have you thought about the problems they will suffer when they get a job? The majority of those who are able to work will be far worse off financially going to work. That's why this benefit system is pathetic.
Percentage increases are very deceptive when the range of incomes is so wide -- and that's precisely why the government has decided to use a percentage in its headline measure. 1% of £71 is 71p; 1% of £2000 (weekly wage of, say, a senior consultant surgeon in the NHS) is £20. They're not the same in terms of spending power, are they?
I've got an idea. The government should set up a voluntary fund and all those that are able & willing to pay into it, to provide extra benefits for others can do so. That way, we don't increase the debt, we don't increase taxes & only those happy to pay the extra do so.
That would be nice, unfortunately I think that would end with the people in society who already pay their taxes and work hard all year long giving more. Which I find sad.
Edit: Not hating on the idea. Just an observation that we have become very selfish as a society.
No, a corporate tax, payable at the end of the financial year by the company (not passed on to the consumer, at least not directly) to be offset against the normal UK CT liability, if any, to guarantee that the government gets a contribution from significant businessses who might otherwise avoid all tax by artificially reducing their profits.
Nice idea in theory, but how do you force a company with no UK establishment or presence to pay tax in the UK when it is already paying tax on the same turnover (and any profits) in the country where it is legally required to pay tax?
For the record, I think Starbucks got a bit of unfair stick for their tax arrangements when they already pay bundles of tax in the UK (directly in the form of VAT, NI, IPT, etc, and indirectly in the form of the personal tax of their employees). Ok, it's not Corporation Tax, but its a myth to suggest they pay or contribute nothing.
Amazon on the other hand .............. . Still, if it means that people can buy cheaper "essentials" in life - like DVDs and Kindles - then I guess that's ok then!
Not sure about Google, but from what I hear they are likely in the Amazon camp?
The government should set up a team of top accounts mixed with people who work with those on benefits who see who really needs them or those with more socialist leanings to get a balance between common sense and humanism.
Would happily pay more tax to those who are mentally or physically incapable of working or genuinely (like many of the folk on here) cannot find work that pays enought to fund a lifestyle that should be expected for hard working people.
I know the tabloid media does probably exaggerate the "professional dole mongerers" to an extent but I'm sure we all know/ see people who just choose not to look for work and that's where the resentment creeps in.
I would scrap income tax for earnings on minimum wage and also national insurance contributions for small business prospective employers of those people encouraging small businesses to take on more people.
Would possibly incentivise many people to seek work as i can't really see the incentive for a lot of people to work when the take home is negligible compared to what they would get on the dole. Also for those who genuinely want to work it is often unaffordable if you have to fork out childcare etc (if they lost jobs after having children for example) or hardly worth the difference once tax and NI is deducted.
More people in work would probably boost the economy too.
They wouldn't be worse off they would prob be no better off
They would be far worse off. I will give you one good example.
I know someone who is dyslexic and was been ill for quiet some time who now on benefits but is capable to work. This person was put in a shared council house rent free and was given a weekly food budget, free electric bill and water etc. This person wants to get a job but he will be far worse off because he will get chucked out of the house and his benefits will completly stop. This person wants to work but he can't because of that reason.
If you were in his situation, what would you rather?
My solution, for starters cut his own benefit a huge margin (Not completly) and make him pay a good contribution towards the Council house and electric bill. In the meantime, he must look for rented accommodation and gain help from the councillors who will assist finding the accommodation for him otherwise his own benefit system will stop and he will be chucked out.
I am sure this would cut our benefit system and we would be able to help those who really need it like the disabled.
Does not surprise me in the least,thats what you would expect from this lot.To see Clegg and Cameron yesterday made me want to vomit.Has borrowing gone down.............er no.
Good for him NLA, but I think it would be better if this benefit system will assist people to go back into work. Not dis-encourage like my examle above which I feel is putting people off..
Genuine question. In your real world analogy, is it right that those on benefits see annual increases when those in the working world don't ?
I'm on a pay freeze, have not had a pay increase in four years, as are many many others. In that time every bill other than mortgage has gone through the roof.
So should those on benefits see cost of living inflationary increases while many in the working world are having their cost of living reduced ?
AFKA _ That's a perfectly fair question.
To my mind, it's all to do with relatives (not in-laws!) and percentages and the actual value of the money respective people are getting. For example, suppose someone is on £40k. Even if they have not had a pay rise for 4 years, it's still a fair amount of money they are bringing home a month (probably around about £2,500) relative to someone on JSA (£71 a week if you're over 25). A 1% increase in JSA equates to 71p a week. So even though a JSA recipient has had a higher percentage increase than the person on £40k, in real terms the person on £40k is still miles better off.
I can see why people would see it as being better off in the system because at the end of the day he gets up all weathers cycles 5 miles to work for a tenner a month in reality
I think the problem is we have given too much as an amount of cash to people in the system
Maybe rent paid, vouchers that were non transferable and only for food and basic living items would be better
It would make people think more I ain't picking on Nathan and fair play to his folks for supporting him how they do
But he doesn't work has not really worked for a sustained period yet goes more away and home games than most
Surely that's not what the system is for
Like I said I was no better really taking the credit taxes and spending them on non essentials but i think I should've been given vouchers for items instead
I am afraid we get what we pay for, we could have free chidcare, healthcare, state education including university fees, £19000 a year in pension, 90% of your pay if you become unemployed, at what cost, 25% VAT including food, 180% new car tax, income tax at between 50% -60% , this is an example from what is probably the happiest country in the world. I gave up on politicians after I found out I had voted for Maggie Thatcher in trousers.
No, a corporate tax, payable at the end of the financial year by the company (not passed on to the consumer, at least not directly) to be offset against the normal UK CT liability, if any, to guarantee that the government gets a contribution from significant businessses who might otherwise avoid all tax by artificially reducing their profits.
Nice idea in theory, but how do you force a company with no UK establishment or presence to pay tax in the UK when it is already paying tax on the same turnover (and any profits) in the country where it is legally required to pay tax?
For the record, I think Starbucks got a bit of unfair stick for their tax arrangements when they already pay bundles of tax in the UK (directly in the form of VAT, NI, IPT, etc, and indirectly in the form of the personal tax of their employees). Ok, it's not Corporation Tax, but its a myth to suggest they pay or contribute nothing.
Amazon on the other hand .............. . Still, if it means that people can buy cheaper "essentials" in life - like DVDs and Kindles - then I guess that's ok then!
Not sure about Google, but from what I hear they are likely in the Amazon camp?
Firslty, I heard the Starbucks spokesman make the same points re the taxes they pay. One of the key points is that there should be a level playing field between Vastco Megagroup and Mrs Miggins Teashoppe, where she is subject to all the other taxes with CT on top, but they can use their international status to manipulate profits downward. Hardly a just situation or fair competition. VAT, by the way, is paid by the consumer and not the company, so I reject that as being their contribution.
I would not be too concerned about tax liabilities in other countries - a small tax charge on sales made in the UK is not unreasonable if they want to do business here. In any case, there is plenty of scope for double taxation arrangements to apply and give them some relief on that income.
Goolge and Amazon proudly pay nothing in the UK. And Amazon actually gain the benefit of shipping from the channel Islands, so avoid needing to charge VAT on non-book items, thus gaining an immediate competitive advantage over UK-based sellers.
I have no problem with them doing this - companies are not moral entities, and simply play within the rules to maximise their returns. If they aren't making a contribution, it is the responsibility of the rule makers to amend the rules to ensure that they do.
I am afraid we get what we pay for, we could have free chidcare, healthcare, state education including university fees, £19000 a year in pension, 90% of your pay if you become unemployed, at what cost, 25% VAT including food, 180% new car tax, income tax at between 50% -60% , this is an example from what is probably the happiest country in the world. I gave up on polititions after I found out I had voted for Maggie Thatcher in trousers.
There is a lot of waste already without increasing taxes.
The money we pay directly and indirectly to the EU for starters.
I've not heard any meaningful talk about reducing that contribution!!
Indeed on the contrary we get shafted by stealth via a virtual doubling of our IMF contribution to bail out the Euro, a foreign currency that is not ours, with more to come and Gideon meeky lies down to have his tummy tickled!
The LIBLABCON are a disgrace to the people they allegedly represent.
This is a very interesting debate, glad to see its being handled intelligently rather than the usual insults being hurled around.
Setting aside the fact that the UK is still in a deep recession - not helped by the fact that Osbourne looks to have taken the wrong approach to getting out of it - the fact is that in the UK and other developed countries there is now a substantial chunk of the workforce who are basically unemployable.
This is because so much of the low-skilled manufacturing work in which this group used to be employed has now either gone offshore or is no longer required, as a result there are big sections of the population - especially outside London - which has little hope of finding employment.
This problem is exacerbated by the fact that these groups are normally of very low educational standards, meaning that there employment prospects are very, very limited. In many cases we are talking about people who are barely literate.
Of course, there are also many educated people out there looking for work, I fully understand that and sympathise with them, but these are the minority, the bigger problem comes from the large number of uneducated people with no real trade or educational qualifications - this is the elephant in the room.
If you look at deprived areas like Northern Ireland, north-eastern England or Scotland then if I am an off-shore investor then why would I invest in these areas? What am I getting for my money? The only attraction that these places have is low wages, and I can get that cheaper elsewhere.
The only answer - and the Germans, South Koreans and to some extent Chinese have gotten this figured out - is to increase the educational level of the population, to make sure that people realise that you as a government will invest in them via their education but that if they choose not to take advantage of that then they are on their own.
Here in Australia we are currently sheltered from the worst of this by the mining boom which is providing plenty of jobs (and huge pay packets) for many unskilled workers but once this comes to an end we will face similar problems to the UK.
In the 'Global Village' in which we now live capital can invest pretty much anywhere it likes and if your country cannot provide large numbers of well educated, motivated workers then you are bang in trouble because those low skill manufacturing jobs on production lines ain't ever coming back.
Comments
Personally, I like the fact that we have a benefits system that is their to support you and me in case of a disaster, especially considering economic disasters like this tend to hit upon the lower-earners the hardest. I certainly prefer this system to the one in America where you're left to rot if you can't get a foot on the ladder.
But it is not ok to abuse those benefits that we should be happy to have, as far as im concerned to abuse those benefits is to stick your middle finger up at those who pay for those benefits.
My point is, the line's are a lot more blurred than a lot seem to accept or believe and that its a bloody difficult thing to figure out whose 'scrounging' off benefits and whose scrounging to survive. I personally dislike this government, but I agree the benefit culture needs to be tackled and at least they'll give it a shot. I'll go and read up on this new policy now to see if I think its as ridiculous as some of their others
It's very hard to say when you listen to the harrowing stories like red had last year
And I find it very difficult to accept that the lady On the news said due to the tax credit and family allowance changes that she is now considering going on the dole to be able to continue to stay the same level of life
Something is wrong somewhere that that is the better option
That way, we don't increase the debt, we don't increase taxes & only those happy to pay the extra do so.
You call these people lazy but have you thought about the problems they will suffer when they get a job? The majority of those who are able to work will be far worse off financially going to work. That's why this benefit system is pathetic.
Edit: Not hating on the idea. Just an observation that we have become very selfish as a society.
For the record, I think Starbucks got a bit of unfair stick for their tax arrangements when they already pay bundles of tax in the UK (directly in the form of VAT, NI, IPT, etc, and indirectly in the form of the personal tax of their employees). Ok, it's not Corporation Tax, but its a myth to suggest they pay or contribute nothing.
Amazon on the other hand .............. . Still, if it means that people can buy cheaper "essentials" in life - like DVDs and Kindles - then I guess that's ok then!
Not sure about Google, but from what I hear they are likely in the Amazon camp?
Would happily pay more tax to those who are mentally or physically incapable of working or genuinely (like many of the folk on here) cannot find work that pays enought to fund a lifestyle that should be expected for hard working people.
I know the tabloid media does probably exaggerate the "professional dole mongerers" to an extent but I'm sure we all know/ see people who just choose not to look for work and that's where the resentment creeps in.
I would scrap income tax for earnings on minimum wage and also national insurance contributions for small business prospective employers of those people encouraging small businesses to take on more people.
Would possibly incentivise many people to seek work as i can't really see the incentive for a lot of people to work when the take home is negligible compared to what they would get on the dole. Also for those who genuinely want to work it is often unaffordable if you have to fork out childcare etc (if they lost jobs after having children for example) or hardly worth the difference once tax and NI is deducted.
More people in work would probably boost the economy too.
I spent 6 months of 2012 out of work following redundancy and started a new job in September.
A divorce 6 years ago wiped me out financially.
Have I ever claimed a single benefit - have I fcuk.
Why should benefits rise when salaries don't ?
I blame Thatcher :-)
I know someone who is dyslexic and was been ill for quiet some time who now on benefits but is capable to work. This person was put in a shared council house rent free and was given a weekly food budget, free electric bill and water etc. This person wants to get a job but he will be far worse off because he will get chucked out of the house and his benefits will completly stop. This person wants to work but he can't because of that reason.
If you were in his situation, what would you rather?
My solution, for starters cut his own benefit a huge margin (Not completly) and make him pay a good contribution towards the Council house and electric bill. In the meantime, he must look for rented accommodation and gain help from the councillors who will assist finding the accommodation for him otherwise his own benefit system will stop and he will be chucked out.
I am sure this would cut our benefit system and we would be able to help those who really need it like the disabled.
Lost his job found alcoholism lost his partner due to it and the home they shared
Ended up in a shared house on benefits not having to pay for anything
Found himself again somehow has his drinking under control found a job
He earns a very small yearly salary and tops it up with over time and agency work
By the time he has paid his rent on a shared house his % of the bills he has 190 quid a month that is his
Now of he stayed on the benefits system I think he was getting about 90 quid a fortnight
He is 10 quid a month better off with disposable
However he now earns the money and has his self respe t back for the difference of a tenner
Would I do what he did
Hell yeah
I would say your example would be in a similar postition
The people in charge when this shit out started was labour
Tbh all 3 parties and leaders are a shower of c**ts
The biggest being that brown and Blair
It's by John Bird, founder of the Big Issue, who knows a thing or two about poverty and how to overcome it.
In summary he is saying that benefits should be geared to "hand up" rather than "hand out" as the present system breeds a cycle of dependency.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2013/01/03/my-tough-manifesto-for-ending-poverty/
To my mind, it's all to do with relatives (not in-laws!) and percentages and the actual value of the money respective people are getting. For example, suppose someone is on £40k. Even if they have not had a pay rise for 4 years, it's still a fair amount of money they are bringing home a month (probably around about £2,500) relative to someone on JSA (£71 a week if you're over 25). A 1% increase in JSA equates to 71p a week. So even though a JSA recipient has had a higher percentage increase than the person on £40k, in real terms the person on £40k is still miles better off.
I think the problem is we have given too much as an amount of cash to people in the system
Maybe rent paid, vouchers that were non transferable and only for food and basic living items would be better
It would make people think more I ain't picking on Nathan and fair play to his folks for supporting him how they do
But he doesn't work has not really worked for a sustained period yet goes more away and home games than most
Surely that's not what the system is for
Like I said I was no better really taking the credit taxes and spending them on non essentials but i think I should've been given vouchers for items instead
Firslty, I heard the Starbucks spokesman make the same points re the taxes they pay. One of the key points is that there should be a level playing field between Vastco Megagroup and Mrs Miggins Teashoppe, where she is subject to all the other taxes with CT on top, but they can use their international status to manipulate profits downward. Hardly a just situation or fair competition.
VAT, by the way, is paid by the consumer and not the company, so I reject that as being their contribution.
I would not be too concerned about tax liabilities in other countries - a small tax charge on sales made in the UK is not unreasonable if they want to do business here. In any case, there is plenty of scope for double taxation arrangements to apply and give them some relief on that income.
Goolge and Amazon proudly pay nothing in the UK. And Amazon actually gain the benefit of shipping from the channel Islands, so avoid needing to charge VAT on non-book items, thus gaining an immediate competitive advantage over UK-based sellers.
I have no problem with them doing this - companies are not moral entities, and simply play within the rules to maximise their returns. If they aren't making a contribution, it is the responsibility of the rule makers to amend the rules to ensure that they do.
The money we pay directly and indirectly to the EU for starters.
I've not heard any meaningful talk about reducing that contribution!!
Indeed on the contrary we get shafted by stealth via a virtual doubling of our IMF contribution to bail out the Euro, a foreign currency that is not ours, with more to come and Gideon meeky lies down to have his tummy tickled!
The LIBLABCON are a disgrace to the people they allegedly represent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/04/osborne-wont-confirm-brit_n_1075482.html
Thanks for posting that link, Len -- very thought-provoking. You've made me order his book now.
Setting aside the fact that the UK is still in a deep recession - not helped by the fact that Osbourne looks to have taken the wrong approach to getting out of it - the fact is that in the UK and other developed countries there is now a substantial chunk of the workforce who are basically unemployable.
This is because so much of the low-skilled manufacturing work in which this group used to be employed has now either gone offshore or is no longer required, as a result there are big sections of the population - especially outside London - which has little hope of finding employment.
This problem is exacerbated by the fact that these groups are normally of very low educational standards, meaning that there employment prospects are very, very limited. In many cases we are talking about people who are barely literate.
Of course, there are also many educated people out there looking for work, I fully understand that and sympathise with them, but these are the minority, the bigger problem comes from the large number of uneducated people with no real trade or educational qualifications - this is the elephant in the room.
If you look at deprived areas like Northern Ireland, north-eastern England or Scotland then if I am an off-shore investor then why would I invest in these areas? What am I getting for my money? The only attraction that these places have is low wages, and I can get that cheaper elsewhere.
The only answer - and the Germans, South Koreans and to some extent Chinese have gotten this figured out - is to increase the educational level of the population, to make sure that people realise that you as a government will invest in them via their education but that if they choose not to take advantage of that then they are on their own.
Here in Australia we are currently sheltered from the worst of this by the mining boom which is providing plenty of jobs (and huge pay packets) for many unskilled workers but once this comes to an end we will face similar problems to the UK.
In the 'Global Village' in which we now live capital can invest pretty much anywhere it likes and if your country cannot provide large numbers of well educated, motivated workers then you are bang in trouble because those low skill manufacturing jobs on production lines ain't ever coming back.