About the Benefits program on BBC1

[bimbabirba]

It has made my blood boil! Especially that judgmental bitch, Debbie, who was telling the single parent that she shouldn't buy a whole chicken on tax payers' money to feed her children! Then she went all judgy and bitchy because the kids eat two cooked meals a day and she asked if that was really necessary!
I think the world has gone mad!

I'm sure you are right Bogeyface but it's as if we all connive to accept this situation without comment (is it too embarrassing or too shameful for the partner who's left or what?) then whinge when we have to pay up to cover their loss.

The missing DH should be explained at least. This might illicit more sympathy for the single mum.

Justin

He wasnt airbrushed out, but as he wasnt contributing (or was but it didnt suit the producers remit) then there was no point in mentioning him. This wasnt about feckless fathers, but about people surviving on the bare minimum and how the rest of society view them.

Xposting!

I just think that as feckless fathers is a whole other program, I mean how on earth can you MAKE someone pay if they are determined not to, then it didnt serve any purpose to discuss it.

Personally I think that instead of threating custodial sentences, which is what currently happens, they actually start using them. You wont pay voluntarily? Fine, we take it from your wage. You quit your job? Fine, make an agreement to pay. You refuse? One more chance......No? Fine, court then jail. And the arrears are building up......Still wont pay? OK, forced bankruptcy, lets see how much fun the new life is then when you cant book a holiday because you only have a basic bank account and no credit card.

But as I said, a whole other issue.

I thought the programme was quite good, I came round to sympathising with all of them, and the point about lack of jobs was made imv. And they did point out how few people there are on benefits and that pensions are the real issue. And the damage to self -esteem that claiming can have on people was demonstrated.

Is there a break down of pension payments somewhere online. So many public servants have been paid off recently onto sometimes pretty generous pensions, if they retired early they will expect this pension for the next 40+ years, and aren't public sector pensions index-linked?
Problem is any government who mentions cutting these will be immediately voted out of office, so it never happens.
Maybe they'll do a programme about over generous pensions next (fat chance).

Pointythings - this is the area in which I work - and I can assure you I am not dreaming - when I tell you that the one thing, the ONE thing this government has done right is make the UK a destination of choice for big multinational corporations.

The corporation tax rate is one of the lowest in the EU. London is a world city.

You have been seduced by the press who long to find culprits. Bankers or multinational corporations or what have you. Multinational corporations pay their tax bills here. Why wouldn't they? It's a darned sight cheaper here in the UK (with a corporation tax rate heading to 20%) than the US (federal tax rate 35% with state and local taxes on top making the cost of paying tax in the US around 43%).

Trust me, you don't know what you are talking about.

Wuldric you have been seduced by the trickle down myth - it isn't money that trickles down. How many of these mega companies employ people on zero-hours contracts, which tie them to a job that can pay nothing but bars them from finding better employment because they're always 'on call'? Yes, this government has done a lot to make the UK attractive to business, but that does not bring much in benefit to the low paid.

I think we should have a globally harmonised tax regime so there's nowhere to hide. And yes, I do know that will never happen. I also think there should be a maximu pay differential between the lowest and highest paid person in a company - say a multiple of 25. That won't happen either.

No-one, no-one, no-one is worth the mega salaries some people get these days. Not CEOs, not footballers, no-one. If you can't live on £1 million a year, what the hell are you pissing it all away on?

This is not an OK status quo except for the companies involved. You probably do know what you are talking about, but what you are talking about is immoral.

You are jumping from one concept you don't fully understand to another that you don't fully understand.

You started by asserting that global corporations do not pay their fair share of taxes in the UK. I explained to you why this is not so, the UK has one of the lowest corporation tax rates in the western developed world. No-one does tax planning to avoid paying taxes in the UK. On the contrary, most tax planning is UK tax-base accretive - ie most multinational corporations try to ensure they declare the most possible revenues in the UK.

You then leap to a globally harmonised tax rate which is sheer nonsense, on so many levels. Then you move to talking about salary differentials ...

Tell you what, why don't you just stop talking about stuff you know nothing about ... Do us all a favour.

I agree with Wuldric. This countries mistake was not introducing immigration controls like germany and australia. The other side of course is that in the 60's the UK relied on caribbean labour to do the jobs the brits woukdn't. In the 00's on eastern European labour to do the jobs the Brits wouldn't.

Germany has more medium sized businesses than the UK. they grew out of the successful family run companies. they are not large enough to move jobs to cheaper countries and pay all their taxes in germany.

also Germany values trades/engineering so the world is prepared to pay a high priced for their products.

their banking system is much more local with the bank manager knowing her/his clients. the great 'Bank of Dave' on Channel 4 covered this well. so they are more likely to lend to companies for business expansion.

the Germany culture in much less foccused on consumer credit which is always going to lead to a transfer of wealth from people with low incomes to people with high incomes.

our govts have much more of a focus on large businesses as they all fund political parties. when Tesco say they are creating 6000 new jobs - I wonder really creating them - or just transferring jobs from small businesses.

pointy things - what is immoral?

but the single dad who has only worked 4 weeks in 22 years why? the country has not been in recession for 22 years and he said he classes looking after his kids as a full time job poor excuse all parents look after there kids if they work or not

There is a shortage of engineers worldwide (and in the UK) but instead of gov helping schools to upgrade their standards of science and maths they just concentrate on any subject that ticks the offsted boxes.

I'm involved in paying huge sums to some of the richest companies in the world. Without exception, their bills come from outside of the UK. They are categorically not paying taxes here.

so what multinational corporations are based in the UK?

profit making ones, that is?

Wuldric, there are no arguments at all in your 21.43 post and your lofty tone does not disguise this.

" No-one does tax planning to avoid paying taxes in the UK. On the contrary, most tax planning is UK tax-base accretive - ie most multinational corporations try to ensure they declare the most possible revenues in the UK."
Actually, to be fair, this is the closest thing you do have to an argument, but it is missing the point. If companies choose to report and pay taxes in the UK it is because the rates are extremely advantageous, ie, low. There is a strong moral argument that they are unfairly low and that encouraging businesses to take advantage of this is unfair and disadvantageous to everyone else. I suppose you think that we should be grateful for having them here at all, on the specious basis that we benefit from crumbs from their table. This argument has been disproven. The knock-on effect on property prices, etc, especially in the capital, has blown our cost of living out of the water and is exactly what is making it very hard for normal people to get by. There are many more ins and outs of this particular issue, but I think it is worth at very least clarifying that you are missing the point although actually enhancing it by mistake, by reinforcing that big business likes it here because they pay less tax.

"You then leap to a globally harmonised tax rate which is sheer nonsense, on so many levels. Then you move to talking about salary differentials "
that use of the word "leap" is misleading. No one is conflating these things. It is allowed to make several different points in one post.

I would be interested to know what your arguments are about these issues. The harmonised tax rate - obviously I can see how this is fiendishly unworkable right now - but why sheer nonsense? We try to work together on environment, human rights, etc. It is associated with human rights that business cannot be to the immense disadvantage of ordinary people, which is something that individual nations have attempted with greater and lesser extent to enshrine in law. Now we are a global economy and any serious attempts to manage the effects of business on workers should take place with a global view. Obviously it isn't - and I am sure you will say can't - but why nonsense? why be so small, so petty?

similarly, there is no argument in your sweeping, nasty, post about why it is silly to keep an eye on salary differentials. As we all know, money is relative. Our income is meaningless unless compared to what you are trying to buy with it. Living amongst people with 7 figure bonuses distorts the prices of basics, like housing, and it becomes very hard to get by. If people had less money to buy their second and third homes, maybe some people would find their firsts a little more affordable.

I don't know what you do when you say you work in this field but it seems to me that you massively overidentify with the status quo. We actually need to look at how we all fit together as a society - not just nationally but globally - and stop expecting individuals to work miracles on shitty systemic situations. Sure, some individuals will. But why make it like that in the first place? Why agree with it being like that?

So in debbies eyes should poor children be forced to eat cold food?

what a disgusting example of a human being.

Wuldric, firms with massive UK offices in London and at various M4 corridor locations - why are all their invoices issued from the Republic of Ireland, the Channel Islands and so on?

The government are fully aware btw, even if you're not.

I know octopus and what's worse a lot of people on this thread agree with Debbie.

It's interesting how this debate about taxation just targets big business very simplistically at baddies just because .... someone has to be to blame. It can't be that we're at fault for wanting more and better healthcare, more and better education, more credit to spend on consumables now, more and better public services, but simultaneously not wanting to pay more for any of it. It can't be us so it must be THEM.

The THEM varies, but the bankers are always seen as a favourite culprit. Yes they are very rich. But there are more of them in London than the rest of Europe put together. This has meant that the corporation tax revenues have been hugely boosted by financial services. It's kept us as wealthy as we are. And they are pretty mobile businesses. No huge manufacturing plants to decommission.

The other favourite THEM is big business. Most multinational corporations do not avoid paying UK tax. As I've said previously, most of us engaged in tax planning are doing UK tax-base accretive work nowadays. There are some groups who do engage in aggressive but legitimate planning schemes - led by the US headquartered groups, particularly the tech stocks (Amazon, Google, Apple). It's a kind of mutually assured destruction thing. Once one of them did it they all had to do it to protect their share prices. They do play by the rules but the rules are not particularly strict. For anyone who is remotely interested, all you have to do is look at group effective tax rates to see that Starbucks are not engaged in the same sort of tax planning. They just seem to have a genius for bad publicity (and bad coffee, but that's a whole other thread).

Global tax harmonisation is a complete pipe dream. Some countries still tax turnover rather than profits. There are tax rates on profits as low as 7% and as high as 50%. How on earth is it ever going to be possible to harmonise that. Not in my lifetime and not in that of my children either.

The whole salary thing has nothing whatsoever to do with tax. That's about inequality. I'm all for upping the minimum wage to a living wage, incidentally. But it's got nothing to do with tax.

I'm glad that margaret challenged debbie on her feeling that a woman with 2 dependent children should get less money

However in kelly's shoes I would never have all those pets, I have this poor people can't have nice things mentality though.
And of course another elephant in the room..., why do all these hard working families have shit jobs and bring in shit wages....of course I'm generalizing but many of them will have piss farted their way through school and payed the consequences.

Wuldric makes an interesting point. The numbers of bankers and those who receive huge wages is indeed small, it might be that they do indeed receive massive amounts of wages, but they did not by themselves get us to the level of debt that is owed by each household in this country.

Come to that all those unemployed people who by and large have no access to credit in any shape or form have caused none of the credit boom. Those on min wage contracts for the last 6- 8 years have had access to credit but payday loans, pawn shops, and overdrafts are about their limit.

So that only leaves the middle classes, those that get mortgages 3 times their salary, get in to huge debt going to university, pay massive amounts for private education and then find themselves struggling to pay other bills. In short the middle classes have fucked the cvountry by refusing to acknowledge that every time sopmeone warned about the rise in personal debt, they assumed it was other people not them. The headlong rush to consumerism, being one up on the neighbours, living the dream sold to them as their birth right, i.e. buy houses pass on wealth, go to university it gives you superior skills, save for a pension as it is the responsible thing to do, have all been found to be lies told by big business and capitalists who just wanted to make the middle class feel better while they ripped off more.

The thing is that there are people who use benefits as a choice. Young single mothers getting away from a crap family enivronment are supported and it is true that the more children you have on welfare the more you can claim. You dont get that if you work. It then gets to be a vicious circle that it pay to stay at home.

I have to say and am going to be flamed for this. Being on benefits is not meant to be comfortable or easy. Its meant to be tough. Why should families or singles not working not be capped at £26k benefits? I think it is going to be a popular cap if I am honest.