Just been on a course about new benefit system

I used to buy that job-creation argument, too, niceguy. But, see above. They're not creating the fucking jobs, or paying the workers in existing jobs.

None of the big supermarket chains could survive without wage subsidies, yet they crow about the profits they achieve through cost-efficiency. We - consumers - pay twice for their profitability bonuses.

Further, I do not believe anyone should be exempt from tax on income earned in the UK (or any other country) just because they live elsewhere. When I earned fees from US clients, I had to declare US tax.

Corporation tax is only a small part of our tax income (£40billionish). And arguably the hardest to increase. Because companies can and do organise their tax affairs to minimise tax paid and they are supposed to do this because it is in the best interests of their shareholders.

By increasing corporation tax we make it harder for companies to create jobs. We drive more of them abroad to lower tax regimes like Luxembourg. Short of invading Luxembourg or quitting the EU (which will also make a lot of firms leave), I'm not really sure what the UK govt can do.

It is not cynicism that causes companies to move to lower tax regimes. those who direct companies have a duty to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders. The fault lies with the UK Goverment, which is responsible for a regime of corporate taxation that menas it makes financial sense for companies to re-domicile.
You appear to be suggesting that only companies domiciled in the UK ought to be allowed to trade with UK customers. That would be unlawful; unless you're planning also to leave the EU. It would also be economic suicide.

Looking at individual top-level taxation doesn't cut it, niceguy, though Philip Green could make quite a dent in the deficit all by himself.

The cynicism of British companies who are now Swiss or Dutch - Boots, for example - moving their headquarters to avoid ALL UK tax, while still making their money out of British residents - is breathtaking both in scale and national expense. Likewise the banks who rip billions out of the NHS for development projects, which are run by tax haven-based subsidiaries.

I don't think people realise how much of our money is on a one-way ticket out of the country, while our little incomes cycle through the economy as they're supposed to.

I don't disagree that aggressive tax avoidance needs to be addressed and it goes without saying that tax evasion is wrong. Thankfully the latter is low. Most money is 'lost' through tax avoidance rather than outright evasion.

But there is a point here to consider which is that often just because HMRC decide an amount is due, it doesn't mean it is so. There's been lots of other threads on this and there is a big grey area because tax is a very complicated matter.

So it's not as simple as waving a wand and collecting another £100billion(ish) of tax.

Outgoings I mean regular expenditure. Defence, welfare, education etc etc. link In fact, I just looked again and the annual expenditure is about £691 billion (2010-2011)

Total tax income is actually £447 billion. HMRC (2010-2011)

So the deficit is actually £244 billion.

I cannot see how we can seriously tackle this deficit without cutting welfare given it makes up £152 billion of our annual expense.

It would be akin to me being up to my eyeballs in debt and refusing to cut anything from my budget other than cancelling Sky TV. It's not a rational solution and no-one sensible will take your attempt seriously.

The top 10% of UK earners pay 50% of the nations income tax. So even if you doubled what they pay, you raise an extra £76 billion which still doesn't come close. And given our top rate of tax is already 40%-45%, I don't see how you would be able to actually bring it in.

It's not economics or politics which is driving austerity, it's arithmetic.

Income from tax = £400billion(ish). Government Outgoings = £600billion(ish).

Income lost to tax avoidance & evasion: £100billion(ish).

Don't know the total cost of low wage subsidies, but I bet it's close to another £50bn.

When you say Government Outgoings, do you mean ALL outgoings? How much would we have saved by not doing the Olympics, cutting back on motorway building and military investments?

I agree Niceguy2 but the fact is we need to cut the welfare state but also crack down on tax avoidance and make it impossible for huge, rich companies and wealthy individuals to avoid paying tax or paying very little. It has been left up to the "squeezed middle" to pay for everything whilst the very rich (many of who have unearned wealth) don't pay anything. Cuts/caps have to be made at both ends of society.

... meant to add, there are between ten and fourteen job seekers for every job in the UK. Even if every job were filled, only 10% of seekers would get one. This figure comes from before the work programme rollout, so it looks safe to assume that some of those jobs will be filled by State-paid staffers.

"Get a job" doesn't make sense. Why is our government still letting billionaires off tax and subsidising employees for big businesses? Shouldn't it be pumping those funds into employment schemes, start-ups, training and support services?

A very large part of this unworkable system is due to the State subsidising poor wages. Something like 75% of housing benefits are paid to people in employment. Tax credits supplement wages too low to live on. Some people can't afford to go back to work because they'd have to leave their DC home alone and their wages won't cover childcare. That's without even looking at the fiscal equivalence of SAHMs.

Pulling funds away from the lowest income groups will create more problems. So would legislating a liveable minimum wage, but that doesn't even seem to be on the table.

I don't see how it's rational to say those without jobs must work, regardless of their personal circumstances, when that work doesn't pay enough to live on or take account of the person's capabilities.

Bear in mind the work programme's still rolling out - it provides free workers to enterprise, their 'wages' paid 100% by the State, and irrespective of their health and family needs.

I think all this anger about benefits money is directed at the wrong people. The system's real beneficiaries are corporations. I'd rather see that addressed.

So what is the alternative?

That's really kind of my point. There isn't a 'realistic' alternative. Cuts are inevitable. We really have no sensible option other than to ration care to those who need it the most.

We already spend way more than we can afford. We simply cannot continue as we are. It's not about the lazy, the feckless. It's about what we can afford to do as a nation.

It's not some sort of ideological class warfare from the rich trying to oppress the poor. It's a simple case of mathematics. Income from tax = £400billion(ish). Government Outgoings = £600billion(ish).

Doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is an unsustainable overspend.

If it comes down to a straight fight between ideology & mathematics, my money will be on maths.

Tax the rich more may net us a few billion more. It still doesn't come close to addressing the root cause of the problem though which is we are spending more money than we can afford to.

OhDo - but these are just symptoms of where we are at: most people who need care in old age, will be paying for it themselves, even if they need to sell their home.

so you pay taxes, & when you need help, you pay for your help. because there are lots of demands on the tax system so anyone who can look after themselves does.

there was no treatment for DPs mum or my dad but the care they got from the state was poor/non existent. i dont think they were badly particularly treated compared with other people, just more a reflection of what the state can provide.

the demands on the welfare system are only going to increase with increasing life expectancy and as i said above 8 million people in the UK with dementia by 2050.

garlicbutter - it doesn't have to be all or nothing. There is no one perfect system anywhere in the world. But in my opinion, just continuing to throw money at workless families only incentivises them to have more kids and does nothing to break the cycle of dependency. They need to start somewhere and of course any change to a long ingrained system is going to a) cause resentment from those experiencing the change and b) take time to start working. Something has to give. The system is unaffordable and doesn't work.

You know, if ALL the money previously given in CTC and CB were pumped into a universal network of full and effective childcare from birth: creches, nurseries, schools and out-of-hours care, with a full & healthy diet, transport, medical and psychological care as well as education; I'd be in favour. But that can't happen because [a] it would cost a lot more than doling out a grand a year for each child, and [b] it would be run by cynical asset-grabbers owned by an ATOS company so care would be patchy and poor.

I agree with Flatpackhampster. The current welfare state has become an incentive not to work it has also become unaffordable. There are simply not enough people in work to pay tax for all these benefits. It has come to a tipping point where we are creating debt to pay for the welfare state because it has become a behemoth. It needs to be cut back radically to what it was meant to be - a safety net for those who had fallen on hard times, the disabled. It should be time limited in my opinion like it is in most other countries so that people cannot stay on benefits for years without having to worry.

And it is ridiculous that workless families do get a pay rise for each child they have (extra tax credits and child benefit). Why should they get paid more simply because they have chosen to add to their family? Working families do not get paid more by their employers because of this. It not only breeds resentment but stops people taking responsibility for their own decisions and creates a culture of dependence (Labour loved all those guaranteed votes).

Apparently the MP Nick Boles has stated that instead of paying more money to families in the form of child tax credits, child benefits, that he thinks this money should instead be pumped into the education system so that children get a much better quality of life from the start and learn the skills necessary to contribute to society. Like the "give a man a fish" proverb. I agree with him.

I do think it is so sad that the sheep that are believing the government spin and think we are so broke that we can't afford to look after the most vulnerable. don't actually look at the vasts amounts of money the government seem to be able to find for their pet projects.
so they take money from disabled people....
yet spend how much on a train?

Unfortunately, the thing about tax is you can't choose what it pays for. Which is why those who crack on that paying more tax is automatically, in and of itself a good thing are so hopelessly misguided.

So what is the alternative?
We have already established that your ideas about DLA are erroneous.
So saving billions by withdrawing benefits from children who get it because they are allergic to nuts isn't going to work is it?

That is the big issue. Thousands of people falling for the hype, thinking its only the lazy, the feckless, the fakers and the liars who are going o get sorted and all will be well.

For rationing read ending.

In a developed county with millions handing over their taxes, trusting they will be cared for.

Do I get to chose that my taxes go on the single mother rather than sending yet another 18 year old to be slaughtered?

That's what I chose please.

The welfare state is being dismantled. This is not a Good Thing.

It's not being dismantled at all. It is however being rationed. Now I grant you that it is obviously not as good as it is now but at the same time we cannot afford the current system so rationing is inevitable.

So you base your experience on two people you claim are fiddling and two people who were very sadly diagnosed too late to be able to claim the help they Would have got?

I suggest you widen your field of reference

You have had plenty of education on these threads but you ignore it.

The welfare state is being dismantled. This is not a Good Thing.

My mother ws born in 1941. She has been vaccinated, educated, housed, transported, cleared up after and her health attended to almost from birth.
This has enabled her to live a productive and tax paying life.
It's all going. What s the alternative?

The idea that you pay taxes and the state provides for you when you need it has already ended. It was on the news this morning about old people with assets of over £23k paying for their own care, even if it means selling their own home.

We are likely to have 8m people with dementia by I think 2050. The state will only help the most vulnerable and the majority will be on their own.

Flatpackhamster - Middle class of me ? :o

I'm far from middle class. Have you been job hunting recently? Of course even graduates don't have much luck these days but they certainly have a better chance then those without higher education. It's a middle class thing to expect university. I'm talking about making it accessible for people who will struggle to afford it.

I'm not saying that we should leave things as they are. I do agree that the benefits system is flawed and people are finding it all to easy to fall into the cycle.

But do you really think taking away that money will help? I think it will cause a whole heap of extra problems.

They gov. need to look at why this is happening. It's not only happening because families have money thrown at them. Which is a bit of an ignorant way to look at it.

Benefit money is calculated to the lowest a person or child needs to live on. When you have another child, they give you the money that the child costs. That other child gets fed, clothed etc. All on a very basic amount of money.

And as for getting a larger house the second you have another child..... Well, the social housing system just doesn't work like that anymore. You are seriously naive if you think it does.

It really isn't as black and white as saying "cut the money to them all" the repercussions are going to be awful. But they never mention that do they? They seem to think all these cuts will magically transform the society into a hard working bunch. But no, those who are working hard already are going to suffer. And those who aren't will be pushed further into poverty.

I'm not denying it needs fixing. I'm just saying this isn't the way to do it!

CharlieUniformNovemberTango

So that's it flatpack? That's the answer. Cut the benefits. Make the people already reliant on them even poorer?

Yes, that's it. Make them poorer, and the people who pay for their half-dozen children richer. Get rid of the incentives to have children.

The problem that arises here is that extra money doesn't solve the problem. By handing over money on a per-child basis you're simply creating larger families of unmanageable children..

So then their children are brought up in even worse conditions. Which often breeds a cycle of them alao being poor. And the children that do grow up to be inspired to get out of that cycle? Well, they can go to university nice and cheaply can't they? Oh wait, no they can't.

How very middle-class of you to assume that the way out of the cycle that your benefits culture creates is university. Because nobody ever amounted to anything without a media studies degree.

The household is already being failed by the system, because the system as it stands forces people to remain on benefits in order to improve their situation. Want a bigger house? Have another kid.

The welfare system as it stands creates and cements poverty, just as the international aid system creates it in Africa and Asia.

garlicbutter

I imagine you think it quite fair that you received your education, your mother got CB, you got your medical & dental treatment, the nice policeman brought you home and so on while I was paying for it? While you were at school I was paying around £20,000 a year in tax + NI, using virtually no public services at all. I never resented it; thought I was contributing to a kitty system that pays up according to need.

Funny how you don't see it the same way now you're paying and I'm claiming.

That roaring noise was the point that was made racing over your head.

I'm talking about people who never put in even when they could and who never work. My problem is with people who think that limiting benefits to three children is somehow abuse. I'd limit it to two, with the proviso that if the second one was a multiple birth that would be covered.

Full automation is never going to work is it because people are untidy. Automation requires people to fit one of how ever many boxes are offered, and there are always going to be a significant proportion who don't fit any.

Automation could work brilliantly once a person's eligibility has been established (HMRC/benefits/local authorities/CSA - all govt. bodies) should be fully integrated and benefits awarded/amended at literally a few clicks of a mouse. In today's age that really should be possible. But establishing eligibility or assessing a change in circumstance is always going to require a properly trained human being IMO.

Now there's client capture for you. The holy grail of the Professional Services industry.