Something For Nothing!

[brightonrock]

Hold on just one minute, if you are talking about legal tax 'loopholes', you are just offering a figure based on a greater tax take if any government felt the need to change tax legislation.

Thats just offering how you or others might wish to change our tax laws and offering a figure on what it might or might not bring in, more of political broadcast than based on facts.

I accept that its worthy of a debate as are many aspects of the tax in this country, but for me it is not wholly relevant.

My point is if the government closed the holes in legislation that are allowing big business to cost the national purse £12b p/a, that would be more in the national interest than demonising 200k people in long term unemployment, who cost far less to subsidise. It would save MORE money and be MORE efficient in alleviating the debt. How is that not relevant?

 

[BigGully]

My point is if the government closed the holes in legislation that are allowing big business to cost the national purse £12b p/a, that would be more in the national interest than demonising 200k people in long term unemployment, who cost far less to subsidise. It would save MORE money and be MORE efficient in alleviating the debt. How is that not relevant?

You actually plucked a tax hike that as yet doesn't exist and used it as an example of how this should somehow justify doing nothing to the cost financial and personal of the long term unemployed.

 

[HovaGirl]

Firstly it takes more than 10 hours a week to job hunt when you're unemployed. Secondly, if I were unlucky enough to become unemployed I wouldn't consider my JSA money for doing nothing, rather I'd consider it a small payback for the tax I've paid previously.

Using your theory pensioners are getting something for nothing from the taxpayer.

No, because they spent the last 50 paying their National Insurance to fund their pension. Trouble is, successive Governments have raided those funds to fund State Spending, which includes the Welfare State, State Pensions, benefits payments, plus repaying national debt. But it isn't enough. The State has to keep borrowing more. Our national debt is now 900% of what the country actually earns. At the moment, the State pays back its debt at a low interest rate, but the global recession means that, eventually, the interest rate on our national debt will rise. This means the Government (Tory or Labour) will have to actually borrow even more money to pay the debt, and fund the Welfare State.

The Welfare State just keeps growing all the time. More people are living longer than was ever anticipated 100 years ago, which means the pension bill is much higher than the amount received to fund it. The National Health system is, financially, out of control. Medical advances means that more people stay alive for longer than was ever guessed at in 1945, and make more demands on doctors, hospitals, and the expensive medical treatments and equipment that the State pays for. Dole money (benefits) was supposed to be a short stop-gap to help people out in times of trouble for a few weeks. Now millions receive benefits for years. And not all of them British, because the benefits system has expanded to help people from Europe, the Commonwealth, and anyone else who thinks they can get away with it, like Health Tourists.

And all of this is paid for out of people's PAYE and NI contributions, but the amount paid by us, the British people, is far less than it all actually costs. On top of that, our PAYE and any of the other taxes our Government can collect, also has to pay for our schools, the police, the fire brigade, local councils, the roads, the army, the Government itself. All of these things cost 900 times more than the State collects in taxes and NI. In 2012, it all cost about £120 billion more than the State collected in taxes.

So there are only 3 things any Government (Tory or Labour) can do to pay all this.

1. Raise taxes through the roof. (But raised taxes means people have less money to spend on housing, in shops, cinemas, restaurants, and other leisure pursuits. This means companies go out of business and people lose their jobs. So they collect benefits instead of paying taxes.)

2. Cut state spending. (That is, cut the number of NHS services. This has already happened with dentists, most of whom are now private. Cut the number of nurses and doctors in the NHS. Cut the army. Cut the number of police. Cut the numbers of teachers. Sell school playing fields. Privatise some parts of the NHS, like cleaning and meals services. Build and maintain fewer roads. Sell state assets, like the railways, gas and electricity companies.
Much of this has already been done, but the debt bill keeps on rising. It isn't enough. What else can be sold? The NHS itself? There would be outrage. Stop benefits entirely? Pandemonium. When we still had an Empire, we ran it with 4,000 civil servants. Now we have 500,000 civil servants, many of them to run the NHS. )

3. Borrow even more money.

And this has been the option since 1945 by successive Governments, both Tory and Labour. During the 70s, it crept up to about 50%, and during the 80s, to about 200%. At the end of the 90s, it reached about 350% and by 2005, had soared to about 500%. By 2010 it had reached 650% of what the State actually earns (GDP). Pensions are unfunded (the NI funds have been used elsewhere) so the figure is nearer 900%. Since then, it has risen even more, and will keep on rising. Britain plc, is living on a giant credit card which will never be paid off.

Britain is the third most indebted country in the world, after Ireland and Japan. Greece is 7th, after Spain, Portugal and Italy.

One day, our creditors will call in their debt and Britain will be bankrupt. America has the option to close down the Government when it gets too expensive, like it did this week. We do not have that option.

 

[brightonrock]

You actually plucked a tax hike that as yet doesn't exist and used it as an example of how this should somehow justify doing nothing to the cost financial and personal of the long term unemployed.

No I didn't. I said it was less of a financial priority, I was making a general point about tory policy & priorities, not a suggestion than nothing at all should be done about unemployment. Also, call me old fashioned but IMO the best way to tackle unemployment is for there to be jobs available, not to blackmail the jobless into unpaid work, which entitles them to claim the welfare they're already on. What benefit does that supply? They get the same money. It doesn't cut the welfare bill, it maintains it. Meanwhile a saving of £12B p/a (based on government figures, not mine) could help fund job creation.

 

[BigGully]

No I didn't. I said it was less of a financial priority, I was making a general point about tory policy & priorities, not a suggestion than nothing at all should be done about unemployment. Also, call me old fashioned but IMO the best way to tackle unemployment is for there to be jobs available, not to blackmail the jobless into unpaid work, which entitles them to claim the welfare they're already on. What benefit does that supply? They get the same money. It doesn't cut the welfare bill, it maintains it. Meanwhile a saving of £12B p/a (based on government figures, not mine) could help fund job creation.

You started with ''no more left versus right wing politics'' and ''anyone that wants to discuss facts'', but then put your own political position ( in this case left wing ) whilst using a tax hike that doesnt yet exists as facts, which is just a proposal of a tax increase

Its a left wing position, fine, but I happen to think that the effects of long term unemployment is not just financial, its personal and social.

The left do seem to hijack any debate branding those challenging it as nasty, demonising etc etc, when actually its an issue that needs addressing.

Its not a rich versus poor thing either I see it as the working ''poor'' versus ''non working poor'' that is where the real resentment lies.

 

[brightonrock]

You started with ''no more left versus right wing politics'' and ''anyone that wants to discuss facts'', but then put your own political position ( in this case left wing ) whilst using a tax hike that doesnt yet exists as facts, which is just a proposal of a tax increase

Its a left wing position, fine, but I happen to think that the effects of long term unemployment is not just financial, its personal and social.

The left do seem to hijack any debate branding those challenging it as nasty, demonising etc etc, when actually its an issue that needs addressing.

Its not a rich versus poor thing either I see it as the working ''poor'' versus ''non working poor'' that is where the real resentment lies.

My position is not left, I was just using simple maths. My argument is that whatever saves the most money should be prioritised, then the next biggest saving, then the next. And that long term unemployment is a drop in the ocean compared to other problems.

The hijacking of any debate like this comes from both sides of the spectrum, I agree there are some on the left who won't discuss difficult issues for fear of causing offence, and accuse others of bigotry/bias. But the right hijack with lazy, sweeping rent-a-quote generalisations borne from a sense of perceived injustice created and perpetuated by sensationalist right wing media.

FWIW I place myself quite centralist on the political spectrum. Being against a right wing policy does not make you left wing, no more than disliking an element of British culture makes you 'hate britain'. My irritation comes from the conservatives' repeated attacks on those individuals who can least afford to fund the deficit. First back office public sector workers were demonised, then teachers and doctors, then the disabled, then the unemployed, and now the young. My feeling is that the pure, emotionless numbers should be the focus, not soundbite politics designed to demonise the poor and protect the rich. If LTU cost this country more than tax avoidance I'd want that prioritised. But it doesn't, so for me it matters less.

 

[HovaGirl]

No I didn't. I said it was less of a financial priority, I was making a general point about tory policy & priorities, not a suggestion than nothing at all should be done about unemployment. Also, call me old fashioned but IMO the best way to tackle unemployment is for there to be jobs available, not to blackmail the jobless into unpaid work, which entitles them to claim the welfare they're already on. What benefit does that supply? They get the same money. It doesn't cut the welfare bill, it maintains it. Meanwhile a saving of £12B p/a (based on government figures, not mine) could help fund job creation.

Successive Governments, Labour and Conservative, have been "tackling unemployment" for 40 years, and little has changed. Jobs have been created, courses leading to jobs have been created, and all sorts of other measures have been taken to reduce unemployment, either by disguising the figures or by real attempts. But the unemployment figures, in essence, haven't changed in all that time. In the meantime, a million Poles and others have taken the traditional jobs of our young, in cafes, bars and restaurants. So there were a million jobs available. But a million British unemployed didn't take them. This has been going on for nearly three generations, now. In SOME families, 3 generations have never worked, and the question is, why not?

There are many others who have been made redundant, and managed to start again. They found new jobs, perhaps worse-paid, or started their own businesses. Why can't some of the long-term unemployed do this?

Could it possibly be, that for some of them, the amount they receive in benefits is preferable to doing a low-paid and unattractive job? Do some of them expect too high a level job, and income, for their capabilities?

And for those long-term unemployed, particularly those who have never worked, it must be psychologically much easier to just sit at home watching TV than to make the effort to go out to work. Going out to work every day must be a difficult psychological transition for some of them to make.

In the meantime, this new policy of the Government is an effort to slowly help some of them with that transition, from staying at home all day, to going to a place of work and getting used to a new routine. Some of them might even get a job as a result. At the same time, the State doesn't then have to pay out for someone else to clean the graffiti, or weed the flower beds, or whatever.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

No, because they spent the last 50 paying their National Insurance to fund their pension.

And many unemployed people have spent 20, 30 or 40 years into the tax pot.

 

[HovaGirl]

And many unemployed people have spent 20, 30 or 40 years into the tax pot.

I don't see what comparison that is with people who have paid their NI specifically for their State Pension. Even life-time unemployed people get a State Pension, even if they have not paid NI.

For older people, particularly women, to get back into work in their 40s to 60s is nigh-on impossible, or, extremely difficult. It took me 3 years to find a job when I was 40, after a decade or so staying at home to rear my children, even though I had a degree and had previously been an office manager. It was assumed, that at the age of 40, I was "out of touch" with modern computerised methods. Now, at 60, having returned from abroad, there just isn't a job for me that I could do while also visiting my elderly mother in her dementia care home. I had to leave my job when my husband was sent abroad, but I was not made redundant. I haven't had a job since. I do not claim benefits. I don't think I can.

 

[kevtherev]

I don't see what comparison that is with people who have paid their NI specifically for their State Pension. Even life-time unemployed people get a State Pension, even if they have not paid NI.

For older people, particularly women, to get back into work in their 40s to 60s is nigh-on impossible, or, extremely difficult. It took me 3 years to find a job when I was 40, after a decade or so staying at home to rear my children, even though I had a degree and had previously been an office manager. It was assumed, that at the age of 40, I was "out of touch" with modern computerised methods. Now, at 60, having returned from abroad, there just isn't a job for me that I could do while also visiting my elderly mother in her dementia care home. I had to leave my job when my husband was sent abroad, but I was not made redundant. I haven't had a job since. I do not claim benefits. I don't think I can.

I'd save my breath(or fingers) if I was you. My late Father told me at 16 when I left school in 1987 I had three choices. A) Get a job. B) Further education, C) Go to work with him. There was no D) Hang around the town and do jack shite all day. As I had to pay my keep and start paying my way in the world, even though my late Farther was quite comfortable in life. How times have changed and not for the better.

 

[HovaGirl]

I'd save my breath(or fingers) if I was you. My late Father told me at 16 when I left school in 1987 I had three choices. A) Get a job. B) Further education, C) Go to work with him. There was no D) Hang around the town and do jack shite all day. As I had to pay my keep and start paying my way in the world, even though my late Farther was quite comfortable in life. How times have changed and not for the better.

Absolutely. And (D) has become a Lifestyle Choice, which everyone has to pay for except those who make that choice.

 

[drew]

No, because they spent the last 50 paying their National Insurance to fund their pension. Trouble is, successive Governments have raided those funds to fund State Spending, which includes the Welfare State, State Pensions, benefits payments, plus repaying national debt. But it isn't enough. The State has to keep borrowing more. Our national debt is now 900% of what the country actually earns. At the moment, the State pays back its debt at a low interest rate, but the global recession means that, eventually, the interest rate on our national debt will rise. This means the Government (Tory or Labour) will have to actually borrow even more money to pay the debt, and fund the Welfare State.

The Welfare State just keeps growing all the time. More people are living longer than was ever anticipated 100 years ago, which means the pension bill is much higher than the amount received to fund it. The National Health system is, financially, out of control. Medical advances means that more people stay alive for longer than was ever guessed at in 1945, and make more demands on doctors, hospitals, and the expensive medical treatments and equipment that the State pays for. Dole money (benefits) was supposed to be a short stop-gap to help people out in times of trouble for a few weeks. Now millions receive benefits for years. And not all of them British, because the benefits system has expanded to help people from Europe, the Commonwealth, and anyone else who thinks they can get away with it, like Health Tourists.

And all of this is paid for out of people's PAYE and NI contributions, but the amount paid by us, the British people, is far less than it all actually costs. On top of that, our PAYE and any of the other taxes our Government can collect, also has to pay for our schools, the police, the fire brigade, local councils, the roads, the army, the Government itself. All of these things cost 900 times more than the State collects in taxes and NI. In 2012, it all cost about £120 billion more than the State collected in taxes.

So there are only 3 things any Government (Tory or Labour) can do to pay all this.

1. Raise taxes through the roof. (But raised taxes means people have less money to spend on housing, in shops, cinemas, restaurants, and other leisure pursuits. This means companies go out of business and people lose their jobs. So they collect benefits instead of paying taxes.)

2. Cut state spending. (That is, cut the number of NHS services. This has already happened with dentists, most of whom are now private. Cut the number of nurses and doctors in the NHS. Cut the army. Cut the number of police. Cut the numbers of teachers. Sell school playing fields. Privatise some parts of the NHS, like cleaning and meals services. Build and maintain fewer roads. Sell state assets, like the railways, gas and electricity companies.
Much of this has already been done, but the debt bill keeps on rising. It isn't enough. What else can be sold? The NHS itself? There would be outrage. Stop benefits entirely? Pandemonium. When we still had an Empire, we ran it with 4,000 civil servants. Now we have 500,000 civil servants, many of them to run the NHS. )

3. Borrow even more money.

And this has been the option since 1945 by successive Governments, both Tory and Labour. During the 70s, it crept up to about 50%, and during the 80s, to about 200%. At the end of the 90s, it reached about 350% and by 2005, had soared to about 500%. By 2010 it had reached 650% of what the State actually earns (GDP). Pensions are unfunded (the NI funds have been used elsewhere) so the figure is nearer 900%. Since then, it has risen even more, and will keep on rising. Britain plc, is living on a giant credit card which will never be paid off.

Britain is the third most indebted country in the world, after Ireland and Japan. Greece is 7th, after Spain, Portugal and Italy.

One day, our creditors will call in their debt and Britain will be bankrupt. America has the option to close down the Government when it gets too expensive, like it did this week. We do not have that option.

National insurance was not paid into a fund for peoples pensions and, ergo, any Government did not raid those funds. Get your facts right. The National insurance that we pay, pays for the state pensions of the current crop of pensioners. When you are old and receiving a state pension that will be funded by the workforce at that time. National insurance was originally introduced to help with illness and unemployment and then later it paid for pensions. Also, the Government is not allowed to raid those funds for general spending or do you have some secret dossier that contradicts that?

Your first option is a little over the top. You don't have to raise taxes through the roof. Just ensure you collect a just tax from corporations in the first place. Some of it is avoidance but some of that is questionable, such as Google and the arguments relating to point of sale!

Seem to recall an earlier post from you moaning about spin. Isn't that what most of your post is?

 

[fat old seagull]

Sounds good in principle but..... will it lead to moreunemployed as unscrupulous businesses take advantage of cheap labour and give the lazy peeps the workers jobs. And what of the hardcore lazies, who are never going to work whatever? Back to mugging, drug pushing and burglary. For me the juries out.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Absolutely. And (D) has become a Lifestyle Choice, which everyone has to pay for except those who make that choice.

Would you care to tell us the breakdown of people that are unemployed and have never paid in versus the people unemployed and have paid in ? You seem very sure that a majority and contributed nothing.

 

[Nibble]

I'd save my breath(or fingers) if I was you. My late Father told me at 16 when I left school in 1987 I had three choices. A) Get a job. B) Further education, C) Go to work with him. There was no D) Hang around the town and do jack shite all day. As I had to pay my keep and start paying my way in the world, even though my late Farther was quite comfortable in life. How times have changed and not for the better.

Interesting not least as it's your generation that have raised this generation of losers that you speak of!

 

[kevtherev]

Interesting not least as it's your generation that have raised this generation of losers that you speak of!

I can assure you there is no such people among my close family who are losers as you describe. It might be my generation and to a lesser extent the one before but it's down to the people's own value's really. I may be far from perfect but I ask nothing from the state, all I do is give for others to take. Guess in some people's eyes that makes me and everyone like me, a bit of a mug.

 

[Nibble]

I can assure you there is no such people among my close family who are losers as you describe. It might be my generation and to a lesser extent the one before but it's down to the people's own value's really. I may be far from perfect but I ask nothing from the state, all I do is give for others to take. Guess in some people's eyes that makes me and everyone like me, a bit of a mug.

Yes, the sweeping generalisation. Not as sweet when put in your own tea eh!

 

[HovaGirl]

Would you care to tell us the breakdown of people that are unemployed and have never paid in versus the people unemployed and have paid in ? You seem very sure that a majority and contributed nothing.

No, I didn't say that. There are people who have been temporarily unemployed but have found work later. There are people who have never been unemployed. These two groups have paid SOMETHING into the NI system. Then there are SOME (not all, or most, but SOME), who have never been employed and have never paid into the NI system, yet they still benefit from it, quite rightly.

 

[HovaGirl]

Seem to recall an earlier post from you moaning about spin. Isn't that what most of your post is?

How can my post be spin when it's a simple statement of unpalatable and unbelievable fact. Britain is broke, has been for decades, and successive Governments have had to borrow more and more money just to pay State commitments. How can that be spin?

 

[HovaGirl]

Interesting not least as it's your generation that have raised this generation of losers that you speak of!

No, it was our parents' generation. The movers and shakers of the 1960s (my parents' generation) turned society upside down in their quest for modernisation. They'd been through a war as children, and were enjoying the good times of the 60s, both socially and politically. They decided there would never be another war and poverty would disappear. We had the NHS, State Pensions, and life was good. We had the best pop stars and fashions and, commercially, the money just rolled in. We'd "never had it so good". Then the bubble burst and we had the dreadful recession of the early 70s. Inflation shot through the roof. The highest rate of personal taxation reached 83% which led to the brain drain, when many of the highest earners and biggest taxpayers left the country, taking their money, their tax potential, their use as employers and their expertise with them. Then began the slow selling-out of the country to foreign investors. The movers and shakers tinkered with the education system, the police system, divorce laws and marriage, they closed mental health hospitals and developed "care in the community" and banned the discipline of children. It's been downhill all the way since then!