| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? 11:58 - Sep 19 with 7264 views | saint901 |
There's a report in the Times today claiming that 3.9m people are on sickness benefits in the UK.
That is one in five of the working population in some ares of the country.
Various nuances are identified as possible reasons for the increase in claims. Covid of course gets a mention. Cost of living increases as well on the grounds that some who have not previously bothered to claim, now do so to offset some costs.
It is suggested also that this is a situation which other countries are not experiencing. Again, one possible reason put forward is that the level of unemployment support int he UK is lower than comparable European countries meaning people turn to sickness benefits.
(This is the Times as well so there is a suggestion that this is a problem caused by or made worse by Labour being in power rather than something that has been going on and getting worse under a decade and more of Tory mismanagement.)
Is this a problem we need to solve and how?
|  | | |  |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 12:52 - Sep 19 with 5202 views | mushinexile |
Social.
Security.
Benefit.
Three words with positive connotations.
Just as they were supposed to be when the system was introduced by a paternalistic Government after the war. The country was bankrupt and we worked out way into the sixties without homelessness or houses costing 10 times salary. People need looking after. The safety net needs to be there and it would be more acceptable to many if it were fine enough to stop our poorest from falling through it. | | | |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 13:16 - Sep 19 with 5162 views | dirk_doone |
"3.9m people are on sickness benefits in the UK.........there is a suggestion that this is a problem caused by or made worse by Labour being in power rather than something that has been going on."
Blimey, Labour have only been in power for about 3 months. It would be incredible if they managed to not only cause but also process that many claims in that time.. Something tells me you didn't vote for them. [Post edited 19 Sep 13:22]
|  |
| |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 13:16 - Sep 19 with 5164 views | franniesTache |
I'd hazard a guess every single person on this forum has claimed benefits at some point in their lives, or has a family member that has.
Even if they get abused - and they do - it's by a tiny number of people. They should probably be increased to be honest.
If you're going to go after "cheats" then go after the rich c*nts that avoid tax instead, or the companies like Amazon who don't pay their fair share. |  | | |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 13:54 - Sep 19 with 5080 views | Ifonly |
Undoubtedly there should be a safety net of some kind, but the big picture is that the current situation is simply unsustainable. No politician will tell you this, but their own bean counters (the OBR) say that if we carry on as we are, spending will increase beyond anything we can ever afford:
So can taxes rise to equal the spending? No, the tax burden is now at record levels at over 40% of GDP and various economic studies have shown that once you go over about 40% it is self defeating because you kill the incentives to work and create new companies. Many argue that we are seeing that already.
It is near impossible to find any area of government spending that should be cut, so what will happen instead is that lots of areas will have to be cut even though we don't want them to be. Within 10 years it will be unavoidable. | | | |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 14:09 - Sep 19 with 5051 views | saint22 |
of course its abused, every benefit is in some way by some
How do you police it? | | | |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 14:27 - Sep 19 with 5026 views | saint901 |
You are correct that I did not vote for Labour in the last GE. I did not vote at all because I was out of the country and Test Valley Council, bless 'em, made a mess of getting postal/proxy forms to me.
I can make some observations on tax and tax avoidance as that is my day job. (I try to settle disputes between HMRC and taxpayers).
The top 1% of earners in the UK (average £16k a month) comprise around 310,000 people. HMRC knows them all. Many these days get what amount to an audit or an in depth enquiry usually at least one year in three. Average rate of tax on this group is around 30% even after all the "loopholes" and alleged (and also unreal) scams are included.
(The bottom 10% of taxpayers earn around £780 a month and pay around 15% in tax).
The issue here however is even if all the "rich" had the money taken off them doubled, would that be put to increasing benefits or is the need actually to reduce those claiming benefits? | | | |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 16:17 - Sep 19 with 4850 views | Butty101 |
Everyone is at it, ive never had a builder come round that dosent offer paying him in cash. |  |
| |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 16:55 - Sep 19 with 4814 views | PatfromPoole |
A lot of people in their mid to late 50's got out of the habit of working during the days of furlough.
They found ways and means of claiming benefits after furlough ended, whether it be a long-standing physical issue or mental health linked.
No easy solution to this one; these people aren't returning to work any time soon. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 17:02 - Sep 19 with 4796 views | saintmark1976 |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 14:27 - Sep 19 by saint901 |
You are correct that I did not vote for Labour in the last GE. I did not vote at all because I was out of the country and Test Valley Council, bless 'em, made a mess of getting postal/proxy forms to me.
I can make some observations on tax and tax avoidance as that is my day job. (I try to settle disputes between HMRC and taxpayers).
The top 1% of earners in the UK (average £16k a month) comprise around 310,000 people. HMRC knows them all. Many these days get what amount to an audit or an in depth enquiry usually at least one year in three. Average rate of tax on this group is around 30% even after all the "loopholes" and alleged (and also unreal) scams are included.
(The bottom 10% of taxpayers earn around £780 a month and pay around 15% in tax).
The issue here however is even if all the "rich" had the money taken off them doubled, would that be put to increasing benefits or is the need actually to reduce those claiming benefits? |
The days of any Government being successfully able to mainly fund necessary expenditure by income from work ( whether at the lower or upper end of the wage scale ) are about to an end.
Ever increasingly tax revenue will also be sourced from an individual’s overall wealth rather than their annual income. More steps in this direction may well come sooner than many expect in the new Government’s first Budget which I believe is set for October 30 2024.
On the subject of Sickness Benefit. Perhaps it may of been an idea for the last Government to have settled the Doctors strike months if not years ago thus allowing sick people to obtain treatment quickly and return to their occupations ? | |
| |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 17:11 - Sep 19 with 4781 views | kingslandstand1 |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 16:55 - Sep 19 by PatfromPoole |
A lot of people in their mid to late 50's got out of the habit of working during the days of furlough.
They found ways and means of claiming benefits after furlough ended, whether it be a long-standing physical issue or mental health linked.
No easy solution to this one; these people aren't returning to work any time soon. |
I live in a reasonably comfortable bubble, but I was furloughed for a couple of months and certainly made the most of it as it was during the summer
Yes the income went down a helluva lot, but then we weren't able to go out to spend any money anyway
I was glad to get back to work however though I do wonder how it is that mental health is continually used and given as reasons for long term absenteeism.
Not saying there are no MH issues about but it does seem to be mentioned frequently and dare I say quite a few take advantage of it, and therefore get the benefits on offer when I'm sure they could be at work |  | | |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 17:17 - Sep 19 with 4768 views | PatfromPoole |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 17:11 - Sep 19 by kingslandstand1 |
I live in a reasonably comfortable bubble, but I was furloughed for a couple of months and certainly made the most of it as it was during the summer
Yes the income went down a helluva lot, but then we weren't able to go out to spend any money anyway
I was glad to get back to work however though I do wonder how it is that mental health is continually used and given as reasons for long term absenteeism.
Not saying there are no MH issues about but it does seem to be mentioned frequently and dare I say quite a few take advantage of it, and therefore get the benefits on offer when I'm sure they could be at work |
I think that though furlough was well-intentioned and was a massive help to so many people, it was seized upon by many as enabling a culture of entitlement. | |
| |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 17:24 - Sep 19 with 4751 views | City_boy |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 16:55 - Sep 19 by PatfromPoole |
A lot of people in their mid to late 50's got out of the habit of working during the days of furlough.
They found ways and means of claiming benefits after furlough ended, whether it be a long-standing physical issue or mental health linked.
No easy solution to this one; these people aren't returning to work any time soon. |
The DWP assessment to determine whether people are fit to work, needs to be tightened up.
Too many people have found ways to navigate their way through the system and some Doctors are signing people off too easy (sometimes probably without even seeing them).
I sympathise with those that have fallen on hard times and lost jobs etc, and they deserve all the help they can get to get them back to work. However, those that believe the benefits system is an alternative to work, need to be called out or forced to do voluntary work. [Post edited 19 Sep 17:26]
| | | |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 17:52 - Sep 19 with 4705 views | Ifonly |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 17:02 - Sep 19 by saintmark1976 |
The days of any Government being successfully able to mainly fund necessary expenditure by income from work ( whether at the lower or upper end of the wage scale ) are about to an end.
Ever increasingly tax revenue will also be sourced from an individual’s overall wealth rather than their annual income. More steps in this direction may well come sooner than many expect in the new Government’s first Budget which I believe is set for October 30 2024.
On the subject of Sickness Benefit. Perhaps it may of been an idea for the last Government to have settled the Doctors strike months if not years ago thus allowing sick people to obtain treatment quickly and return to their occupations ? |
Wealth taxes don't work. That has been shown internationally. In 1990 12 European countries had wealth taxes. Today most have been abandoned and there are 3 remaining.
There are many problems with them. Maybe the biggest problem is that people who are genuinely wealthy just leave and live elsewhere, so rather than getting more tax from them you get less. So, to raise any money you have to tax the middle classes. But to do that you have to know what their wealth is which you have no way of knowing without doing a detailed audit and searching their attic for the gold bars that they have moved their money into. You need an army of hated tax inspectors for that which will cost more money than it raises.
So, they don't work but I think Labour will introduce some just because it is "red meat" as they say. A likely target will be pensioners with private pensions. They're sitting ducks because they can't hide their pensions. It wouldn't be fair but so what? The only one that would be cost effective to implement and reasonably fair would be a tax on houses but that would lose them too many voters so it won't happen. | | | |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 18:14 - Sep 19 with 4671 views | Southamptonfan |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 12:52 - Sep 19 by mushinexile |
Social.
Security.
Benefit.
Three words with positive connotations.
Just as they were supposed to be when the system was introduced by a paternalistic Government after the war. The country was bankrupt and we worked out way into the sixties without homelessness or houses costing 10 times salary. People need looking after. The safety net needs to be there and it would be more acceptable to many if it were fine enough to stop our poorest from falling through it. |
I voted Labour this time, mainly with the view that everything is a mess, can't be much worse than the disaster we have seen in the last few years and might as well see how they do. But, taking money from pensioners is a big mistake. That wasn't in the manifesto. Whilst asylum seekers are nice and warm in hotels, and indeed those who dont work and perhaps haven't ever worked, many pensioners who have worked and paid taxes for 60 years, freeze this winter. There is a message there.
And I suspect in the next budget, those who have done the right thing worked hard and saved into savings accounts, will be taxed to the hilt. If the message becomes "don't save money, the government will take most of it" then many will stop saving and just take the benefits. For example, those who don't own a house, don't have any savings etc, are provided with care free of charge. If you save and own a house, the government will take it and use it to pay for your care. So the message is, don't own your own home, don't save, and the government will pay. Except, that won't work will it. If nobody works and nobody saves, because the government will take it, the country goes bankrupt. So I do fear for the direction we are going in.
Then watching violent prisoners with champagne celebrating their early release. Many should have been tagged but haven't been. What is the message there? The wrong one, that's for sure. [Post edited 19 Sep 18:40]
| |
| |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 18:59 - Sep 19 with 4549 views | saintmark1976 |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 17:52 - Sep 19 by Ifonly |
Wealth taxes don't work. That has been shown internationally. In 1990 12 European countries had wealth taxes. Today most have been abandoned and there are 3 remaining.
There are many problems with them. Maybe the biggest problem is that people who are genuinely wealthy just leave and live elsewhere, so rather than getting more tax from them you get less. So, to raise any money you have to tax the middle classes. But to do that you have to know what their wealth is which you have no way of knowing without doing a detailed audit and searching their attic for the gold bars that they have moved their money into. You need an army of hated tax inspectors for that which will cost more money than it raises.
So, they don't work but I think Labour will introduce some just because it is "red meat" as they say. A likely target will be pensioners with private pensions. They're sitting ducks because they can't hide their pensions. It wouldn't be fair but so what? The only one that would be cost effective to implement and reasonably fair would be a tax on houses but that would lose them too many voters so it won't happen. |
Interesting alternative view if only, lost me a little reference gold bars but hey ho.
“ So to raise money you have to tax the middle classes” Yep, middle classes with wealth.The same middle classes with assets that want a functioning N H S and Care System together with a good Education for their children and a decent Transport system to name just a few of their needs.
Pensioners and their private pensions . I suspect you won’t be wrong, again a wealth asset as will be increases in people’s Capital Gains Tax wealth and changes to Inheritance Tax Bands wealth. All not difficult to define and pretty impossible to hide.
“ tax on houses but that would lose them too many voters so it won’t happen” Not a problem when you’re three months into a five year Parliament with a majority of 170 seats and the last revision of council tax bands and house values in England took place in 1991.
On a broad brush ending. It’s accepted that the happiest residents of Europe are those in the Scandinavian communities. They have excellent Public Services and very high rates of Taxation. Despite political parties of all colours telling us the opposite the facts are that unfortunately you can’t have one without the other. [Post edited 19 Sep 19:02]
| |
| |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 20:47 - Sep 19 with 4323 views | djsaint |
There should be more than enough money to go round.
Two (I know there’s many more) big reasons there isn’t:
1. Tax evasion by both individuals and companies/corporations.
2. Benefits fraud.
It’s the same whoever’s in Government but none of them have the stomach to be honest and tackle it head on, so we continue to spiral deeper and deeper, paying insane amounts annually (approx £75 billion just in interest) on the national debt (now over £2 trillion)! |  |
| |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 21:10 - Sep 19 with 4288 views | saintmark1976 |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 20:47 - Sep 19 by djsaint |
There should be more than enough money to go round.
Two (I know there’s many more) big reasons there isn’t:
1. Tax evasion by both individuals and companies/corporations.
2. Benefits fraud.
It’s the same whoever’s in Government but none of them have the stomach to be honest and tackle it head on, so we continue to spiral deeper and deeper, paying insane amounts annually (approx £75 billion just in interest) on the national debt (now over £2 trillion)! |
Last figures I can find ( BBC ) the National Debt was £ 2.7 trillion in July 2024 equivalent to 99.4% of the value of all goods and services ( G D P ) produced annually in the UK.
Interesting times in more than one sense of the words. | |
| |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 21:58 - Sep 19 with 4251 views | Ifonly |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 18:59 - Sep 19 by saintmark1976 |
Interesting alternative view if only, lost me a little reference gold bars but hey ho.
“ So to raise money you have to tax the middle classes” Yep, middle classes with wealth.The same middle classes with assets that want a functioning N H S and Care System together with a good Education for their children and a decent Transport system to name just a few of their needs.
Pensioners and their private pensions . I suspect you won’t be wrong, again a wealth asset as will be increases in people’s Capital Gains Tax wealth and changes to Inheritance Tax Bands wealth. All not difficult to define and pretty impossible to hide.
“ tax on houses but that would lose them too many voters so it won’t happen” Not a problem when you’re three months into a five year Parliament with a majority of 170 seats and the last revision of council tax bands and house values in England took place in 1991.
On a broad brush ending. It’s accepted that the happiest residents of Europe are those in the Scandinavian communities. They have excellent Public Services and very high rates of Taxation. Despite political parties of all colours telling us the opposite the facts are that unfortunately you can’t have one without the other. [Post edited 19 Sep 19:02]
|
Yes, it's true that Scandinavian countries are reported as being happy. I'm not sure why though, how is that known? Not by looking at the data on suicide rates anyway. They all have higher suicide rates than the UK, so aren't we happier on the objective measures? But OK let's go with it anyway. The problem is that the lessons don't translate to a country like the UK.
I've worked there and I can tell you that those countries are entirely different to the UK and what works there won't necessarily work here. They are all small (the population of Denmark, Finland or Norway is only about 4 times Hampshire's) and very socially cohesive cultures (a fact that is attributed to the historically harsh winters and relatively homogenous populations). As a result they're much happier working for the common good, in contrast to this country which is far more individualistic and "nimby". They are happy to pay taxes because they can see where they're spent, unlike the UK where people don't see how they're spent and don't want them spent on the work-shy and immigrants. It's just a difference in culture that isn't going to change any time soon. What works in Scandinavia doesn't even cross the border to Germany and Holland, let alone here.
But even in Scandinavia, wealth taxes don't work. This is Norway's experience of a wealth tax as reported in the rabid right wing Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/super-rich-abandoning-norway-at-re
So, with less tax coming in from the wealthy, they have to target the middle classes. You obviously don't have a problem with that, but see Southamptonfan's post above for a more typical reaction. As he says, the messages are all wrong and disincentivise saving. A sensible government encourages saving because then it will have less of a problem in future. That's why UK governments have followed that policy for decades.
Meanwhile, just like Southamptonfan, existing pensioners won't think it's fair that they are being punished for working hard and saving after so many years of the government telling them that's what they should do. So they won't comply. Money will indeed be converted to gold and hidden. The more tech savvy pensioners will convert cash to bitcoin instead where it will never be found. The net result is that the state will have to spend enormous sums trying to track the wealth of 40 million people who have come to see the state as their enemy, or very little tax will ever be recovered.
So yes there may well be wealth taxes because they are politically convenient but they won't work and will do more harm than good. There are better and fairer ways of raising taxes. | | | |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 22:16 - Sep 19 with 4194 views | kingslandstand1 |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 18:14 - Sep 19 by Southamptonfan |
I voted Labour this time, mainly with the view that everything is a mess, can't be much worse than the disaster we have seen in the last few years and might as well see how they do. But, taking money from pensioners is a big mistake. That wasn't in the manifesto. Whilst asylum seekers are nice and warm in hotels, and indeed those who dont work and perhaps haven't ever worked, many pensioners who have worked and paid taxes for 60 years, freeze this winter. There is a message there.
And I suspect in the next budget, those who have done the right thing worked hard and saved into savings accounts, will be taxed to the hilt. If the message becomes "don't save money, the government will take most of it" then many will stop saving and just take the benefits. For example, those who don't own a house, don't have any savings etc, are provided with care free of charge. If you save and own a house, the government will take it and use it to pay for your care. So the message is, don't own your own home, don't save, and the government will pay. Except, that won't work will it. If nobody works and nobody saves, because the government will take it, the country goes bankrupt. So I do fear for the direction we are going in.
Then watching violent prisoners with champagne celebrating their early release. Many should have been tagged but haven't been. What is the message there? The wrong one, that's for sure. [Post edited 19 Sep 18:40]
|
Post of the day Southamptonfan!
I am in that save for your pension, paid off my hefty mortgage, yes took some unemployment benefits for a short period, and paid all of my dues etc bracket, but voted blue as I just could not bring myself to trust the two faced Starmer!
I'm not saying Rishi (well any of the Tories) are fully trustworthy, but they had to be better than Starmer and his crowd. It turns out they are worse than anybody expected | | | |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 23:33 - Sep 19 with 4079 views | saintmark1976 |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 21:58 - Sep 19 by Ifonly |
Yes, it's true that Scandinavian countries are reported as being happy. I'm not sure why though, how is that known? Not by looking at the data on suicide rates anyway. They all have higher suicide rates than the UK, so aren't we happier on the objective measures? But OK let's go with it anyway. The problem is that the lessons don't translate to a country like the UK.
I've worked there and I can tell you that those countries are entirely different to the UK and what works there won't necessarily work here. They are all small (the population of Denmark, Finland or Norway is only about 4 times Hampshire's) and very socially cohesive cultures (a fact that is attributed to the historically harsh winters and relatively homogenous populations). As a result they're much happier working for the common good, in contrast to this country which is far more individualistic and "nimby". They are happy to pay taxes because they can see where they're spent, unlike the UK where people don't see how they're spent and don't want them spent on the work-shy and immigrants. It's just a difference in culture that isn't going to change any time soon. What works in Scandinavia doesn't even cross the border to Germany and Holland, let alone here.
But even in Scandinavia, wealth taxes don't work. This is Norway's experience of a wealth tax as reported in the rabid right wing Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/super-rich-abandoning-norway-at-re
So, with less tax coming in from the wealthy, they have to target the middle classes. You obviously don't have a problem with that, but see Southamptonfan's post above for a more typical reaction. As he says, the messages are all wrong and disincentivise saving. A sensible government encourages saving because then it will have less of a problem in future. That's why UK governments have followed that policy for decades.
Meanwhile, just like Southamptonfan, existing pensioners won't think it's fair that they are being punished for working hard and saving after so many years of the government telling them that's what they should do. So they won't comply. Money will indeed be converted to gold and hidden. The more tech savvy pensioners will convert cash to bitcoin instead where it will never be found. The net result is that the state will have to spend enormous sums trying to track the wealth of 40 million people who have come to see the state as their enemy, or very little tax will ever be recovered.
So yes there may well be wealth taxes because they are politically convenient but they won't work and will do more harm than good. There are better and fairer ways of raising taxes. |
If only, Scandinavian countries are reported as happy. With the greatest of respect the fact that you are not sure why, doesn’t render that fact untrue does it ? I’m not sure why people support Man United but the fact that 72000 odd turn up for most of their home games renders my incredulity irrelevant.
I take your point concerning culture and size of the countries under discussion and that they are happy to pay high taxes for good Public Services which is exactly my point concerning the UK. Over countless years under various colours of different Governments we have been constantly told that high taxation is a bad thing when all evidence to the north points in the opposite direction. In other words you are condemning something that as a country we haven’t tried probably in your or my lifetime.
In respect of wealth taxes you are conflicting the super rich with our middle classes.Yes, the super rich may well be able to move from country to country but that’s simply not possible for the the vast majority of our middle classes is it ?
Reference your suggestion that I don’t have a problem with wealth owning middle classes paying more tax.You are absolutely correct I don’t, with the proviso that the Public Services I previously mentioned improve from their current dire state. You also state that Southamptonfan’s post is more typical but fail to provide any evidence to substantiate what is after all just his/her opinion.
Turning to your penultimate paragraph and again with great respect if you genuinely think that middle class pensioners have ready access to the gold bullion or bitcoin markets I can only suggest such a view is at best extremely unlikely and most likely simply not feasible.
In any event what we both appear able to agree upon is that Wealth Taxes will soon be with us what ever our differing views. It will be interesting to see the outcome. | |
| |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 07:55 - Sep 20 with 3763 views | saintwizzler |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 22:16 - Sep 19 by kingslandstand1 |
Post of the day Southamptonfan!
I am in that save for your pension, paid off my hefty mortgage, yes took some unemployment benefits for a short period, and paid all of my dues etc bracket, but voted blue as I just could not bring myself to trust the two faced Starmer!
I'm not saying Rishi (well any of the Tories) are fully trustworthy, but they had to be better than Starmer and his crowd. It turns out they are worse than anybody expected |
Labour have come into to a right mess caused by the Conservatives and have said it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
The heating allowance should of been means tested years ago so the right people still received it and vice versa.
Things had to change and we couldn’t go on under the tories.
At least Starmer has come out and said it unlike the previous PMs who buried their heads in the sand.
Whoever voted Conservative at the last election can’t be short of money as they obviously wanted the country to continue as it was. The Rich get richer.
SHAME ON YOU
It’s going to take a very long time to get this country fixed
If it ever does.
😞
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8rx1jjg35ko |  |
| We thought that we had the answers,
It was the questions we had wrong. |
| |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 09:45 - Sep 20 with 3705 views | dirk_doone |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 07:55 - Sep 20 by saintwizzler |
Labour have come into to a right mess caused by the Conservatives and have said it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
The heating allowance should of been means tested years ago so the right people still received it and vice versa.
Things had to change and we couldn’t go on under the tories.
At least Starmer has come out and said it unlike the previous PMs who buried their heads in the sand.
Whoever voted Conservative at the last election can’t be short of money as they obviously wanted the country to continue as it was. The Rich get richer.
SHAME ON YOU
It’s going to take a very long time to get this country fixed
If it ever does.
😞
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8rx1jjg35ko |
It's ironic that Tories are blaming Starmer for the mess they created over their 12 years in power. The Express, the Mail, the Telegraph and GB News have been at it with their anti-Starmer headlines nearly every day since the general election, and it's only 3 months since he inherited the mess their party left behind. It took 12 years to create this mess; it's going to take more than 3 months to sort it out. [Post edited 20 Sep 9:47]
| |
| |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 09:54 - Sep 20 with 3667 views | saint901 |
Having contributed to several studies on wealth taxes, including quite a serious attempt by the last administration to find a way to introduce one, I can confirm that they are seen by most developed economies as counter productive, difficult to operate and political dynamite. They make a great slogan for the vox pops but otherwise contribute little.
I've also worked in Sweden and know quite a few tax advisers there. Yes, they have high tax rates but these are linked to measures and processes which prevent the Gov't of the day spending all that money in the way they wish. Instead, certain budgets are ring fenced away from the politicians and this gives the tax payers some confidence that the social security benefits they pay for will be delivered. As a result those trying to avoid tax there are very few and if caught doing it, the cost is enormous.
Sweden also has very strict rules around who can claim benefits and have poured money into the checking that claimants qualify. That is true of many European countries.
The stories about pensioners freezing in their beds may be correct (we'll see in March) but the media is deliberately picking extreme cases to try and criticise or justify a policy that applies to many. I'm a pensioner. I had a winter fuel allowance last year. I donated it to a food bank because frankly I'm lucky enough not to need it. I suspect many others did the same (perhaps put it into a holiday fund).
There will always be those on the cliff edge for whom the withdrawal of the payment will hurt. A phased reduction would be better. That however requires a means test and that test means hiring people to do it. There would have been no savings.
For me the issue in the UK is cultural one. People seem to expect the state to look after them and have become lazy or complacent about taking care of themselves and the people they care for, When the state starts to creak, they find it hard to accept and spend energy and time that could have been spent working, to instead find ways to keep the gravy train on the rails.
And this administration and probably all those before them back to the 1960's have allowed this culture to flourish. Pulling back from that situation is a long road littered with pain. | | | |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 10:00 - Sep 20 with 3659 views | djsaint |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 09:45 - Sep 20 by dirk_doone |
It's ironic that Tories are blaming Starmer for the mess they created over their 12 years in power. The Express, the Mail, the Telegraph and GB News have been at it with their anti-Starmer headlines nearly every day since the general election, and it's only 3 months since he inherited the mess their party left behind. It took 12 years to create this mess; it's going to take more than 3 months to sort it out. [Post edited 20 Sep 9:47]
|
You’re deluded/blinded by politics if you think our country and it’s finances were all ship shape prior the tories last coming to power! | |
| |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 10:17 - Sep 20 with 3591 views | Ifonly |
| Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse? on 23:33 - Sep 19 by saintmark1976 |
If only, Scandinavian countries are reported as happy. With the greatest of respect the fact that you are not sure why, doesn’t render that fact untrue does it ? I’m not sure why people support Man United but the fact that 72000 odd turn up for most of their home games renders my incredulity irrelevant.
I take your point concerning culture and size of the countries under discussion and that they are happy to pay high taxes for good Public Services which is exactly my point concerning the UK. Over countless years under various colours of different Governments we have been constantly told that high taxation is a bad thing when all evidence to the north points in the opposite direction. In other words you are condemning something that as a country we haven’t tried probably in your or my lifetime.
In respect of wealth taxes you are conflicting the super rich with our middle classes.Yes, the super rich may well be able to move from country to country but that’s simply not possible for the the vast majority of our middle classes is it ?
Reference your suggestion that I don’t have a problem with wealth owning middle classes paying more tax.You are absolutely correct I don’t, with the proviso that the Public Services I previously mentioned improve from their current dire state. You also state that Southamptonfan’s post is more typical but fail to provide any evidence to substantiate what is after all just his/her opinion.
Turning to your penultimate paragraph and again with great respect if you genuinely think that middle class pensioners have ready access to the gold bullion or bitcoin markets I can only suggest such a view is at best extremely unlikely and most likely simply not feasible.
In any event what we both appear able to agree upon is that Wealth Taxes will soon be with us what ever our differing views. It will be interesting to see the outcome. |
"...if you genuinely think that middle class pensioners have ready access to the gold bullion or bitcoin markets I can only suggest such a view is at best extremely unlikely and most likely simply not feasible."
Every middle class pensioner already has access to the gold and bitcoin markets and many of people own them already. If someone wants physical gold, all they need is a couple hundred quid to buy things like this:
https://bullionhouse.co.uk/product-category/100g-gold-bars/
For bitcoin all you need is a phone. The most recent surveys estimate that 5.6 million people in the UK currently own cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin.
These things will only become more popular if they start taxing traditional savings. As I've explained this makes the tax unfair as the burden will fall on the law abiding middle classes. Tax avoidance will be adopted by the wealthy and tax evasion can be easily adopted by the non law abiding using routes like this. Just one of many reasons why this is a bad tax... | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
