Cash benefits or Food stamps?

[phoenix]

I used know plenty of people who sell milk tokens!!

 

[martyn20]

You mean like big screen TVs, mobile phones and playstations?

I actually meant food and clothing and essential travel etc

 

[martyn20]

And a lot of people on benefits still pay tax, incapacity benefit is a taxable income and the tax is taken before you get the monthly payment.

 

[Tubby Mondays]

Rent is paid direct is it not?

In the vast majority of cases no it isnt. It is paid to the claimant.

 

[Tubby Mondays]

Hardship loans are available from the DHSS, small amounts of cash should be given each week, but not enough to make this form of lifestyle attractive.

Hardship loans are not available from the DHSS.

The DHSS has not existed since 1988.

 

[LamieRobertson]

You mean like big screen TVs, mobile phones and playstations?

All unemployed buy these things?
Should they b limited in the size if screen thy are allowed? Etc etc

 

[spig100963]

Whilst a third not working might be correct (I'm not sure it is though, sounds a little too high) don't forget most of these might not be in receipt of a benefit. Unfortunately most statistics concentrate on those within the working population, this is those between the ages 16-64. So you have those in school and those retired too. Of the working population you also have stay at home parents etc. to add to those unemployed, sick and disabled. I know in 2012 5.4 million people were in receipt of an out-of-work benefit which works out to about 9% of the population.

I see.

Going back to your previous quote regarding Police etc paying taxes. I can remember as a young soldier naively thinking why I had to pay tax. Just seemed like a lot of unnecessary paper work. When the taxes where going to pay my wages.

 

[sten_super]

No.

Those that work for the state also pay taxes. People seem to forget this. It always makes me chuckle when knuckle heads claim that they pay the wage of the Police, failing to recognise that the police do indeed pay taxes too. Plus, a proportion of your council tax goes towards some state services.

Sorry, I don't really follow this. Yes, public sector workers pay taxes. So you can argue that the amount they pay in tax effectively pays for part of their own gross salary. However, their net salary (assuming you also net out sales taxes and various other indirect taxes) is paid for by the public purse, a part of which comes from income tax.

Put another way, any tax paid by a public sector worker is a recycling of government money.


On the more general argument - the problem is that we want to be able to provide adequately for those genuinely in need, while making benefits low enough to encourage the workshy into employment; how do you do both, with a single level of unemployment benefit? There are systems in place to attempt to distinguish between the two, in order that they can receive different benefit levels, such as the need to be searching for work in order to claim unemployment benefit, but whether this actually works is questionable. In the US, they distinguish between the two by only offering standard unemployment benefits for two years after someone is made unemployed - but again the success of this scheme is doubtful. If there was an easy answer then I like to think that someone would have found it by now.

 

[SK1NT]

To all the daily mail readers, the percentage of benefits abusers are probably under 3% and yes we should clamp down on these however to penalise all the other legitimate claims is wrong.

At the end of the day it is a poxy £65 a week... How about the millions and millions dodged by the super rich? The benefits abusers are a drop in the ocean of money being lost by the country compared to the super rich. Why do people always look down the food chain when times get hard and never up?!?!

I have close friends who live on the social and just cannot find work. They have plasmas, and smoke etc but they can't put their lives on hold just to make the benefit bashers feel better.

I do however think benefits should only be claimed for a limited time (2 years?)

 

[martyn20]

To all the daily mail readers, the percentage of benefits abusers are probably under 3% and yes we should clamp down on these however to penalise all the other legitimate claims in wrong.

The fact of the matter is it is a poxy £65 a week... How about the millions and millions dodged by the super rich?

I have close friends how live on the doll and just cannot find work. They have plasmas, and smoke etc but they can't put their lives on hold just to make the benefit bashers feel better.

I do however think benefits should only be claimed for a limited time (2 years?)

I take it you mean there should be a limited time on unemployment benefit only?

 

[SK1NT]

I take it you mean there should be a limited time on unemployment benefit only?

Yup

 

[LamieRobertson]

Yup

And what would happen after that period?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

All the time the current government are doing their upmost to screw the economy and look after their own it is futile pointing a finger at someone on benefits. Whilst there are f*** all jobs how on earth can you tell someone to get one? Pointless. As things stand vast swathes of the nation have a valid reason for being out of work and the reason is this governments pathetic attempt to get the economy moving.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yup

And then what?

 

[MJsGhost]

No.

Those that work for the state also pay taxes. People seem to forget this. It always makes me chuckle when knuckle heads claim that they pay the wage of the Police, failing to recognise that the police do indeed pay taxes too. Plus, a proportion of your council tax goes towards some state services.

Sorry, I don't really follow this. Yes, public sector workers pay taxes. So you can argue that the amount they pay in tax effectively pays for part of their own gross salary. However, their net salary (assuming you also net out sales taxes and various other indirect taxes) is paid for by the public purse, a part of which comes from income tax.

Put another way, any tax paid by a public sector worker is a recycling of government money.

The salary public sector workers receive is in return for the hours that they have worked - it has still be earned by them and paid to them - at which point it is no longer 'government money'. Them paying tax is exactly the same as anyone else, regardless of the fact that their salary was paid out of the public purse.

On the more general argument - the problem is that we want to be able to provide adequately for those genuinely in need, while making benefits low enough to encourage the workshy into employment; how do you do both, with a single level of unemployment benefit? There are systems in place to attempt to distinguish between the two, in order that they can receive different benefit levels, such as the need to be searching for work in order to claim unemployment benefit, but whether this actually works is questionable. In the US, they distinguish between the two by only offering standard unemployment benefits for two years after someone is made unemployed - but again the success of this scheme is doubtful. If there was an easy answer then I like to think that someone would have found it by now.

Agreed!

 

[SK1NT]

And then what?

They get a job

 

[Aadam]

Sorry, I don't really follow this. Yes, public sector workers pay taxes. So you can argue that the amount they pay in tax effectively pays for part of their own gross salary. However, their net salary (assuming you also net out sales taxes and various other indirect taxes) is paid for by the public purse, a part of which comes from income tax.

Put another way, any tax paid by a public sector worker is a recycling of government money.


On the more general argument - the problem is that we want to be able to provide adequately for those genuinely in need, while making benefits low enough to encourage the workshy into employment; how do you do both, with a single level of unemployment benefit? There are systems in place to attempt to distinguish between the two, in order that they can receive different benefit levels, such as the need to be searching for work in order to claim unemployment benefit, but whether this actually works is questionable. In the US, they distinguish between the two by only offering standard unemployment benefits for two years after someone is made unemployed - but again the success of this scheme is doubtful. If there was an easy answer then I like to think that someone would have found it by now.

On your first point, whether you view it as recycled government money or not, public servants also pay taxes. The point being that they're not part of the population that don't. On the second point, how do you take into consideration things like contributions to rent and the number of dependants you have? Not a snipe, I'm asking if you have a view on this also? I notice you question the American system, I'm not sure it works, like you suggest.

To all the daily mail readers, the percentage of benefits abusers are probably under 3% and yes we should clamp down on these however to penalise all the other legitimate claims is wrong.

At the end of the day it is a poxy £65 a week... How about the millions and millions dodged by the super rich? The benefits abusers are a drop in the ocean of money being lost by the country compared to the super rich. Why do people always look down the food chain when times get hard and never up?!?!

I have close friends who live on the social and just cannot find work. They have plasmas, and smoke etc but they can't put their lives on hold just to make the benefit bashers feel better.

I do however think benefits should only be claimed for a limited time (2 years?)

Assuming you mean unemployment benefits only, what do you plan to do with those that are forced homeless because they cannot find a job? I don't think there should be a finite amount of benefit available, but the proper help and support should be there.

With regards to your first point, this government is all for protecting their rich friends, whilst creating a witch hunt against those that need help. Over the last few years HMRC spent £633,000 on publicity around tackling high-end tax evasion, compared with £17.5m on publicity around tackling benefit fraud. By that crude measure, HMRC considers tackling benefit fraud about 27 times more important than tackling high-end evasion.

 

[Aadam]

All the time the current government are doing their upmost to screw the economy and look after their own it is futile pointing a finger at someone on benefits. Whilst there are f*** all jobs how on earth can you tell someone to get one? Pointless. As things stand vast swathes of the nation have a valid reason for being out of work and the reason is this governments pathetic attempt to get the economy moving.

Absolutely 100% this.

The salary public sector workers receive is in return for the hours that they have worked - it has still be earned by them and paid to them - at which point it is no longer 'government money'. Them paying tax is exactly the same as anyone else, regardless of the fact that their salary was paid out of the public purse.

Which is what I've said. Public sector workers earn and pay taxes, just like everybody else.

 

[SK1NT]

On your first point, whether you view it as recycled government money or not, public servants also pay taxes. The point being that they're not part of the population that don't. On the second point, how do you take into consideration things like contributions to rent and the number of dependants you have? Not a snipe, I'm asking if you have a view on this also? I notice you question the American system, I'm not sure it works, like you suggest.



Assuming you mean unemployment benefits only, what do you plan to do with those that are forced homeless because they cannot find a job? I don't think there should be a finite amount of benefit available, but the proper help and support should be there.

With regards to your first point, this government is all for protecting their rich friends, whilst creating a witch hunt against those that need help. Over the last few years HMRC spent £633,000 on publicity around tackling high-end tax evasion, compared with £17.5m on publicity around tackling benefit fraud. By that crude measure, HMRC considers tackling benefit fraud about 27 times more important than tackling high-end evasion.

This is it. If the government focused more on the super rich tax dodgers and not the handful of benefits cheats then this would benefit the country sufficiently more.

 

[sten_super]

The salary public sector workers receive is in return for the hours that they have worked - it has still be earned by them and paid to them - at which point it is no longer 'government money'. Them paying tax is exactly the same as anyone else, regardless of the fact that their salary was paid out of the public purse.

I'm not debating that they pay tax the same as anyone else - that is patently true. However the point remains that someone whose income is derived entirely from the public sector cannot, by definition, be a net contributor to the public purse.

I'm not trying to say that public workers don't deserve the money they are paid (that's an entirely different argument and one that probably applies equally to the public and private sectors), but that the income to government has to come, in the first instance, from the private sector.