"Strivers vs Skivers" - what do you think?

[KateMumsnet]

Hello all

Prompted by a blog post this week from MN Blogger Sonya Cisco, and this opinion piece by BlogFest panellist Zoe Williams, for our first blog-prompt of the New Year we thought we'd ask for your thoughts on the current debate around benefits cuts.

According to both Sonya and Zoe, politicians have deliberately encouraged us to think of people as either 'skivers' or 'strivers' in order to pit people on low incomes against one another - and to divert attention from the fact that the economy simply can't provide enough jobs.

Do you agree with them? And if not - why not? Post your URLs here if you blog - or, if you haven't got a blog (why not? ) do tell us what you think here on the thread.

ssd, I am not hurt at all. It's fine. It's not true I always put my needs first. If that were so I'd just have married someone well off and sat around living off male earnings and I wouldn't have had children. I love them and if we count up the hours looking after them over the last 28 years it will be more than just about any housewife of 2 on mumsnet. I have always aimed to spend time with them every day, rushed home from work when they were babies, early etc, set up my own business so I control my time, do quite a lot of unpaid stuff I don't write about. So I don't particularly characterise my life as putting myself first.

In fact you could say people like I am are the ones who ensure that those who genuinely cannot work like some on the thread or need the state to top them up with tax credits or housing benefits or disability rights are working for. Half of what many earners earn, indeed a lot more if you add in national insurance and VAT and stamp duties is keeping those people in need. So the fact at before 8am on a Sunday I am at my desk about to do a load of work whilst children sleep upstairs is yes 50% so I can feed myk children without state benefits but the other half of that money will go back into the benefits budget and ensure that those who are not working can spend Sunday at home rather than pushing leaflets through local doors asking for work or foraging in pret a manger bins for lunch.

If I wok from say 7 - 1 today which at the very least I will do then half of that at least will be going to those on the thread and OAPs and the state schools and the like. Now quite a lot of people up against 52% and indeed more now child benefit has gone entirely so marginal tax rates can be 60 or 70% in the UK have started to think okay the over time is not worth it as the state takes so much of what i will earn. I do know people who once tax got to 50% (it is still 50% by the way, not yet reduced) decided that was it - if most of what you earn is confiscated then you don't bother to do the over time. The fewer people who work the worse the economy is and the less there is available to the less well off.

Right back to work.

Good morning Xenia

"Pret a manger bins" please.....I prefer M&S myself .

I waa up early too....woke up at 5am...pretty normal here. I absolutely DO appreciate people who are able to contribute to the economy assisting me while I cannot work.

The thing is that when I was working I paid taxes too. I wasn't quite in the higher rate area but I wasn't far off it in salary. I never considered the tax as to me it was just deducted and my consideration was "how much left to live on". Fact is that the higher rate tax payer still has an enormous amount to live on and more left over in many cases unless their outgoings are excessive. I don't have a great deal of time for those who say "bugger it, I won't bother working then" as they are just as bad as the "I can't be bothered to work" type of benefit claimant. Neither are contributing ...although the former HR tax payer presumably has enough to retire on and not give a stuff.

It comes down to how much does a family realistically need. I have an acquaintance who moans about tax yet he is a millionaire with a lavish lifestyle. He really doesnt miss or need the tax he pays but he csnt see it. Yes he has and still does work hard but he also had an awful lot of lucky breaks come his way too....bring in the right place at the right time for example.

Anyway just my thoughts. ...

jake my aunt used to sit and moan about the unfairness of inheritance tax and how on earth was she going to avoid her children paying it and in the next breath demand my dad came and sorted her garden out because she couldn't possibly afford to pay for a gardener some people are just.... well.

how much money does anyone realistically need?

i think i'd be up for the kind of set up where a doctor doesn't get paid that much more than a nurse who doesn't get paid that much more than a porter and everyone pays 50% of tax and gets free decent health care and education, free childcare, good pensions and affordable, secure rented housing. is it sweden that is like that? pretty sure they are some of the happiest people in the world according to studies.

people don't need to earn 5 times as much as someone else. and reality is we need nurses as much as we need doctors, teachers as much advertising executives etc etc. lower the pay gap, free education for those who want to be doctors or lawyers but no massively inflated income at the end of it just getting to do the job they wanted and have the status that comes with it and the state paid to train them so they don't need vast salaries to compensate them etc.

Yes, some people are never happy whatever their circumstances - happiness is about the balance of chemicals in your brain , seratonin, dopamine and the like. Getting that pay rise or better house is not the route to it at all. Nor is jealousy of others or feeling sorry for yourself,. Even if doctors and nurses were paid the same you would still get some people unhappy because they are always as miserable as sin or jealous of Janice because she's blonde and slim or her husband is better than yours and others who are content.

Ensuring we were all born as identical clones on the same wage is unlikely to make the nation happier. Obviously I could just go on threads in effect about how to spend your wealth, which holidays or posh shoes are best or comparing nannies or island owners but I think it's good to talk to all kinds of people and hopefully some people will manage if they want to to found that business and do well.

Lovely news in the papers today - female entrepreneurs in the UK now earn more than male ones.

not sure how we leapt to 'identical clones on the same wage'. i'm just saying the gradient between a cleaner's full time wage and the director of the business she cleans doesn't need to be off the charts steep. i also don't believe companies should make multi millions in profit whilst paying their staff so little they have to be topped up by the state.

i do think there is a huge spectrum between absolute capitalism and communism - the implications that any criticism of the former means one wants to see a communist regime a bit tiresome.

good news for female entrepreneurs.

Bad English from me - identical clones - you are a clone not an identical clone as they are all identical if cloned.

I'd solve the state subsidy issue by removing it and then wages would reach their market level which is how things used to operate before workers within my working life time started to get tax credits. It was a Labour party device to ensure benefits claimants were made of most of the working population to suck them into socialism and dependence and it failed.

If you want to ensure no one in a company is paid more than say 5 times anyone else (which seems to be the multiple those recommending that issue go for) that is pretty hard to achieve. Those won want to be the female entrepreneurs or male for that matter just leave if they cannot advance within the company and they make their own money through their own sole company which may not have any workers in it at all so no multiple issues arise.

You could have maximum pay rates for employees. I suppose you could have a prohibitive tax - we used to have an upper 99% rate in the UK. I read an interview with the tubular bells music man recently. He paid about 88% of what he earned from the music to the state under the 1970s tax rates. Obviously, he left the country but not before just about all the profit from that was in effect confiscated by a socialist state who wanted to redistribute to the poor.

imo if you want private sector wages to go up you create lots of decent paying public sector jobs - instead we've seen the opposite - cut public sector jobs, slash their pensions and working conditions so that private sector doesn't have to compete and can pay as shite as they like.

likewise if you want private rents to go down you build lots of cheap affordable rent housing and the private market needs to compete with that.

honestly the weird logic of this country freaks me - high unemployment, lack of work unskilled labourers and a need for employment to save money on benefits and generate tax revenue? don't put bin collections down to fortnightly! put them up to twice a week. increase your street cleaners, your road maintenance etc to create jobs.

'I'd solve the state subsidy issue by removing it and then wages would reach their market level which is how things used to operate before workers within my working life time started to get tax credits. '

Yeah, because there was no such thing as poverty before the welfare state... oh wait...

My gran was telling me that my grandad, who was in work, used to claim some sort of top up to do with rent. Must have been in the sixties or seventies. There have been top ups for poorer families for quite a while, going by various different names.

Swallowed, while your proposal sounds lovely in theory, in reality it would be unworkable. For example, no one is saying that nurses aren't to be respected, but to pay them the same or close to a top brain surgeon is ludicrous. I believe you should be paid inline with the difficulty or skill level of the job. Obviously there will be those who may be paid more than they should be (before anyone mentions bankers ), but on the whole, salary should reflect the level of the job.

An overhaul has been long overdue.

IS for single parents means they get at least five years of not working whereas those that work get 12 months maternity so this needs to be addressed to put all mums on the same footing rather than penalise those that provide for their children.

Tax credits were the worse things ever introduced, how many people quite their jobds, reduced their hours etc knowing the state would pick up the tab. On here lots will advocate having more children as tax credits will pick up the costs.

We need to ensure people only have children they can afford, if they want to e a SAHP or not use childcare then them alone will have to meet that cost. Luxuries should not be paid for by the state.

We should have a safety net for short term between jobs and for the disabled that cannot work in any form. Assistance with childcare could be done via the tax system like the voucher system or make it tax deductible.

Yes, salary should reflect level of job. At the bottom as well as the top.

NMW is just unacceptable for jobs that require qualifications. For example, care assistants or nursery workers.

The gap is too wide. It needs closing.

xenia, I was wrong saying you put yourself first, sorry.

I'm a fan of everyone earning exactly the same. If a job needs doing, it needs doing. If it doesn't need doing then there's no job. Tea lady or CEO, if the job exists it's because someone thinks they need that job to be done.

I expect that makes me a communist or something.

NMW is too low....tax credits were introduced to reflect this. NMW does not allow people to work without claiming benefits.

Id like to see evidence that people gave up work or reduced hours based on tax credits....they are not THAT good. All they do is top up a meagre income.

i actually don't believe a gp's job is harder than that of a nurse in busy hospital ward - so by that logic she deserves higher pay than the gp who does two 2hr surgeries a day mostly saying, 'ah it's a virus', writing a prescription for anti depressants or handing over a phone number to book your appointment with a specialist.

i reckon if every full time job paid between 25k and 50k that would be spectrum enough. and if education was free then you wouldn't have the 'but they go to uni for 7 years' argument. getting to study for 7 years and to learn to be a doctor is actually a privilege in my book.

i'm not saying identical pay but a much smaller scale of difference. then surprise surprise house prices would have to come down as would rents and you wouldn't have the overpopulation of some areas of the country and the barreness of others.

people would pick the jobs that they actually wanted to do and had a gift for - if that's delivering the post and chatting to old ladies about the weather then fair play to them - if it's brain surgery then great. i want my post delivered far more frequently than i need a brain surgeon to be honest. likewise i'm grateful for people who collect the bins, people who take care of old people with dementia in a dignified way, people who are willing to spend all day shut in a classroom with 30 kids who can't even tie their own shoelaces and people who clean in hospitals and give a genuine smile and service to those who are stuck on a ward going out of their mind.

i don't buy this the money should go to the cleverest, most ambitious, most power hungry or just plain lucky enough to have parents who funded their elite education and networking years people. it doesn't work. we've tried it for a long long time. it serves very, very few of us and ignores that fact that we need all work to be respected and appreciated.

i'm bored of the reign of the psychopaths. i like nice people.

Jake.

I am so sorry to disagree with you as I whole heartedly have agreed with all your points until now.

However, I don't work and dh earns min wage (paid out of his business). As a family we get more tax credit with me not working, taking into consideration costs associated with working. Namely running second car, tax, (I pay NI), work clothes.

They do only top up a meagre income though - I agree there and we are lucky that outgoings are minimal now. But all the same I would earn less working, and made the decision not to work and claim tax credits.

I don't want to offend anyone, but I don't believe a GPs job is easier than a nurses on a busy ward- it may not be as frantic, but it will require other skills. GPs are also responsible for the running of the practice so require business management skills, plus a wide ranging medical knowledge. They also have to be bright enough to pass the same medical exams as all other medics to qualify.

We've tried it. The upper rate of tax at 99% in the 70s. Even my father a fairly modestly paid NHS consultant employed only by the state was paying 63% upper tax rate on the top of his earnings in the 1970s when we had strieks, power cuts, the three day week inflation up 60% over 3 years. It was not a great time. In fact on his savings he paid another 15%. The aim was as ssd and others want to ensure there was no difference between rich and poor - doctor taxed so hard that the pay starts to reach the level of the nurse once tax is taken off. It didn't really work unfortunately.

China tried it in the cultural revolution - doctors paid the same as dust bin men. I can obviously appreciate the moral view which thinks it is only right and surely it's what people try in communes - you pool everything and share it out and because of human nature (we fight each other tooth and claw and love to get to the top of that greasy pole on the whole) it always ends in squabbles nad failures. Even the Israeli kibbutzim today does not follow those same original principles of sharing and each keep their money.

And if anyone decided to take even more than the 50% of what I earn which goes to feed the poor at present I would simply move. I can work anywhere where there is an internet connection, even my island. I like England but it is not so great that I would stay here if tax rates were 60 - 70% which is the only way to equalise pay as limiting highest paid employee in a company to say double lowest or 5x which is what level those interested in this talk about simply means people go off and work for themselves as I do so it doesn't work too well. So your only route if tax.

France has a wealth tax - even though the income was earned they take a percentage of your savings, value of your house etc away from you every day so you get poorer and poorer. Then you could have 100% inheritance tax and 100% gift tax too so people give nothing to family including spouse (we certainly don't want in this socialist utopia women getting a penny from men, heaven forfend, even on death, greedly little rapacious leeches some of them can - let them earn their own money in our model utopia) during life or in death.

not in the main actually. there are very many people not at all motivated by fighting 'tooth and claw' and trying to get up a greasy pole. very, very, very many.

and again not saying all paid the same - but a smaller scale of difference and everyone paying the same tax.

scarlet intelligence is a blessing, a lucky break and one that most intelligent people want to exercise to feel fulfilled. it doesn't magically merit earning a fortune. and needing a few business skills - funnily enough i bet lots of nurses need business skills too if they're running a ward. and yes frantic - frantic matters. would you rather be using your natural given, or easily developed 'skills' or working your arse off digging ditches?

there are blessings enough to being clever, gifted, able to access work that you find rewarding and meaningful - i'd rather have a doctor who did their job because they cared about people, enjoyed using their knowledge, diagnostic skills and accumin to help people than one who did it because it was a secure job that paid well and let you retire at an early age.

Happymum

If people only had children they could afford, they wouldn't need help with childcare.
Tax credits have been taken by people to support their childcare provision. in the form of the childcare element.

I have to say that when DS was younger and his differences less obvious that tax credits were minimal for me...the basic. As he got older and more challenging I was able to reduce my hours ^but could stay in work^ because tax credits made it more financially worthwhile to be IN work. Only when DS got to his current age in the last year have I had to make the decision between being a rather poor(unreliable) and overtired employee and making the decision to become a full time Carer. It was not an easy decision and I chewed it over for 18 months before deciding it was the only way forward. It was still a leap of faith, I had no idea how it would work in practice until I did it.

Per month I am around £200 worse off out of work (including housing benefit into that "income") but knew this as I spoke to benefits advisors long before making the actual decision. I didn't face any sanctions for giving up my job because even the DWP could see I was in a difficult situation.

I am nearly a year out of work now and about to start volunteering as a parent supporter with an education charity which works to get adults into some form of education or training and focuses on those who might not have done this for a long time, it will be one morning a week and is my route back into work which I have missed. It will still be some time before I can go back to work but I know I will, I have always worked and see a future where I can work once again.

If wages were better (as in people earned enough to live on and support a family) we would not need tax credits. Fact is though they are not better and we DO need tax credits (or UC or whatever other name they choose to give them).

yes we do need it - and taking it away would not improve salaries. that only works in a situation where you have a surplus of jobs and labour is in demand ergo it's a workers market. much as cutting housing benefit only works to drive down rent if you have a surplus of housing, tenants are in demand ergo it's a tenants market.

in a situation where you have a shortage of work and housing there is no force to drive up wages and drive down rents. you simply find the person who will do the job at that price (even if you have to source them from overseas which is easy now we're in the eu) or the person who will pay that price to buy or rent the house.

the government should be creating jobs rather than fannying around with ideological moves and social engineering. instead they have cut jobs, cut workers benefits and are making it even easier for employers to pay cheap (or even get free labour from 'workfare').

i'd like the state to employ as many people as possible and to gain decent public services and tax revenue from doing so. let the profit be for the state (both in terms of money made and taxes generated and services given that improve everyone's lot). i'm lost as to why the state being a leading employer is problematic for people unless they're the people who benefit from services being sold off cheap to them for them to run with shit wages and big profits.

i'm guessing none of us here are profiting from this kind of strategy whereas most of us would profit from a state that creates jobs and leads the way in workers benefits and conditions.

does that actually make me a socialist or something? because it just seems like common sense. i'd definitely have taken over those banks that we bailed out and would be taking their profits into the public purse to pay off the deficit and recoup what had been paid out. is that not the logical thing to do?