to think that there are people who choose to live a life on benefits?

[autumnlights12]

the recent threads about George Osbourne made me wonder..
A high number of posters say that people don't choose to live like that, they stumble into it, hate it, what a miserable existence it is, nobody would ever choose it etc..
but if you have two or three children through choice, whilst at the same time having no job to provide for them, or if you turn down the job at the local factory (as I know someone who did) because it pays £7.50 an hour and a full time job there doesn't give you the same unemployment rights and benefits, isn't that choosing to live a life on benefits? Or being trapped on benefits? I'm not talking about people who can't work, disabled people, ill people, women dumped by feckless ex and left to fend for herself etc.. of course they should be protected.
I was watching 999 What's Your Emergency and I know that area. And I know people like that exist. And it's often a second, third generation who have never worked a day in their life, even during times when work was freely available. In the town I live, we have numerous Eastern European immigrants who all seem to be working, but mostly in low paid work the locals wont do
What say you?

Because I don't know much about how income support operates, Outraged.

And, more importantly, because I'm using accurate, published statistics rather than hysterical rhetoric. I haven't found exact data on jobseeking and income support on ONS. Should you care to do your own searches on there, perhaps you can enlighten us.

I'm aware of that thanks Garlic. I'm loving the way you post as if I have that much money! I can assure you, I am a long way off being a higher rate taxpayer.

I think 45% is fine. 40 would be better.

What agencies, though? We had surestart, that didn't work. School is the only thing where the children HAVE to go or the parents get fined ie there's a financial cost. So that's the best hope. But if there were another agency that could force the parents to be interested, I'd go for that. I can't imagine what it would be though. Possibly this "troubled families" intiative may help.

Bugsy: yes, we've had free education for ages but that doesn't mean it's the right kind. Support for familes - yes if you are talking about intervention, no if you are talking about money.

garlicbutty Wed 10-Oct-12 14:37:36
Freddos - Higher-rate tax is only applied to earnings above the maximum threshold. Don't make out you're having half your income taken away, because you're not. You pay the same rates as everybody else, then higher rate tax on income over £150,000.

See, this is bollocks. Quite plainly bollocks.

Basic Rate £0-£34,370

Higher Rate £34,371-£150,000 (Note the higher rate is actually starting lower and lower in cash terms, never mind real)

Additional Rate >£150k

Source

That excludes NI, of course.

^Do you not think it's decent to give back half of what you earn over £150,000?
Why not? How much would you like to give back?^ What's the matter with 40%, which it was for most of the last government.

I have "reviewed the evidence" and note that it actually says "fraudulently claiming incapacity benefit".

garlicbutty, I recommend that you use another expression to make your perfectly reasonable point.

My DH was perfectly happy to pay 50% on his earnings over £150,000. The best way to make him change his mind is to call it "giving back". It is money he has earned. It is a case of making a contribution to live in a civilised state.

Brycie - definitely intervention.

onemorechap, how is that not what garlicbutty said?

Oh, do you mean she should have said, 'additional rate' tax? In the context of 50% vs 45%, I assumed that was what she meant.

Ok got to go. Bye and thanks.

I take your points about incorrect terminology, grovel and Boulevard.

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep

Oh, do you mean she should have said, 'additional rate' tax? In the context of 50% vs 45%, I assumed that was what she meant.

She said higher rate, which kicks off at £35k or thereabouts. Should really be around £42k but the thieving Tories didn't keep it indexed. See Rooker-Wise et al.

It is a case of making a contribution to live in a civilised state.

You're absolutely right, of course!

should have said, 'additional rate' tax? In the context of 50% vs 45%

So are you. Cheers for the improvements :)

For pete's sake, OMC, I looked on HMRC's income tax band advisory. I'm not a bloody accountant, as you can tell.

Most salaried individuals aren't paying NI at such a high rate on their earnings about about £42K as they are on the rest of their earnings, anyhow, so it's not like someone on £50K is paying out a vastly higher percentage of their total income than someone just below the higher rate tax threshold.

I always feel with these threads that there's an implicaton that those of us in work with a certain standard of living have got there as a result oftheir own hard work. It's such tosh. We are where we are in life as a result of myriad factors, a very minor one being hard work. That doesn't mean to say that I think working hard isn't a must: I just don't think working hard can get you out of any given shitty life.
I volunteer with people in desperate circumstances, often in receipt of benefits, and I can't think of one who has 'chosen' that life.
I watched 999 and I didn't feel anything but sad at the state our divided society is in. I haven't got any answers tbh.

That's true about NIC contributions ending at a certain point so 45% over 150K is only 13% more than the lower paid burden of 32% over £8k. I do agree with cutting corporate taxation if it stimulates investment and creates jobs. But personal profit no. What do you need all that money for anyway

Surely it has to do with aspiration somewhere along the line.
Yes, you can exist on benefits. There seem to be varying degrees of existing on benefits, from really on scraping along to being just about ok. Personally, I don't think sky tv etc comes from benefits, but obtaining money from another source.
However, most people who are working are usually doing that because they aspire to a life that is better than that on benefits. Somewhere along the line they have been shown that there is a better way. Most commonly that comes from the values of the family you grow up in - not everytime because there have to be exceptions, but in most cases.

Those of you who think it's generational, do you think young carers and sibling carers will be signing on the dole too?

It is when you have small children usualsuspect. As long as you time it right, you can live a lot of years on benefits without any bother at all.

Isn't that where what you & your family aspire to comes into it.

If you are a carer for a parent or sibling who can't work because of whatever reason they need caring for, that is very different to receiving state benefit because you don't have a job even though you are physically/mentally capable of working. (That is a statement of fact & I'm not implying that everyone physically/mentally can get a job or there aren't other factors at play.)

Tressy
What do you need all that money for anyway

Quite right.

I could spend yours much better than you, as you don't know the best way to shop. Here, give me 45% of it and I'll spend it for you...

... or maybe I should let you spend your own money.

I have no problem with tax at 40%.
I have absolutely no problems with stopping conniving bastards paying 10% rather than 40%
I encourage hitting tax evading individuals and tax avoiding corporations.

I don't see why someone else should decide how I spend such a vast amount of the money over £35k I make.

I know a couple who CHOOSE to live separately rather than together as that way she can claim she is a single mum, sod the fact that her kids don't get to live with their dad, but only see him a few nights a week when he is legally allowed to stay, I would say she CHOOSES to be on benefits. I'm sure there are lots who deserve the benefits they get but I am horrified by people who work the system, and yes I will be flamed but it IS us who pays for them from our taxes.

Onemorechap, I pay over quite enough on my low income and don't always agree with how it's spent by the treasury, thanks.