The Tories and their new hoops for the working poor to jump through.

[HelenaDove]

If you are not working enough hours or cant get enough hours you will apparently be sanctioned. Unbelievable I cant see some employers being happy with this either although they should be paying a living wage in the first place. Because ppl who have been sanctioned are hardly going to be able to get to work are they?

Ridiculous and vindictive.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/ministers-are-reaching-beyond-scroungers-and-aiming-britain-s-working-poor

No needs she can't claim
Carers as she earns more than £102 a week.

Has she looked into what she's allowed to have disallowed from her income?

And stupidly I didn't even notice it said she works full time because I'm not especially observant

stubborn that was NOT my intention I just wanted to point out that pre tax credits pay was low and i think it disingenuous of people to try and blame it on tax credits.

as has been said, the extortionate cost of that most basic of human needs a roof over your head is one big reason that so many people cant make ends meet.

Govt policy has created the aforementioned situation.

Snakes and lizards the whole bloody lot of them

Tax credits were introduced by Gordon Brown to make us all clients of the state - he even proposed that all employers paid thier total payroll to HMRC, who would then send the after-tax pay to the employees. Child tax credit was paid to people who earned more than £50k.
Tax credits are very high on the list of reasons for low paid jobs, alongside the NMW and public sector/union pay scales.
People accept certian jobs are NMW or payscale because the get tax credits, whilst at least half are underpaid compared to thier performance/value to the company - the other half are overpaid.
I also do not understand the accusation that the Tory party policies are based on a hatred of the poor. There is far more evidence that the Labour party hurt the poor and make life more difficult for them.

Because carol if you look up there ^^ to the image Lumpy posted, you have to wonder why they are chasing after 1bn in fraud and 1 bn in overpayment, when 16bn goes unclaimed, and HMRC themselves are estimating that there is £30bn unpaid or avoided tax.

It does not take a genius to figure out that they are spending millions chasing the wrong thing. The figures for the creation and roll out of UC currently stand at over £6mil.

If they wanted to spend £6mil on something, perhaps it could have been put towards the huge unpaid tax bill. But that would likely make dinner with their mates a bit uncomfortable, so best not.

It makes so little sense, that the only conclusion to be drawn is that they think poor people have only got themselves to blame and that they are somehow second class citizens.

So because some people don't claim, those with overpayments or who commit fraud shouldn't be chased?

They are changing the system to an easier more real time one, it needs doing and will hopefully stop some of the fraud so it will likely recoup some costs of the initial set up.

They are not penalising the poor. They are simply expecting people to work that are physically able to and self support as much as possible. It's not a lot to ask of people.

As for they believe poor people only have themselves to blame. Nobody forces people to have children, not get any skills or qualifications or just work a few hours. We all make choices, what's wrong is that some make them and pay for them whilst others believe it's their right to have them paid for by the state.

They know exactly who is too blame, they target the poor and powerless precisely because they are powerless, ie easy targets

Snow White you are very naive.

'clients of the state'
What does this mean exactly? The 'State' is us. All of us in an interconnected way and wouldnt function without the low paid.

^'clients of the state'
What does this mean exactly? The 'State' is us. All of us in an interconnected way and wouldnt function without the low paid.^

I would assume she means creating an excessively transactional relationship between the state and its citizens, above and beyond merely collecting taxes.

Snow White while I agree with your first 3 paragraphs. Your last one is very blinkered.

Life really isn't as simple as that and often people have little choice in their situations.

People who are disabled for example, or who are caring for a disabled child or partner. Women and children who have fled domestic abuse. Young men and women who have left abusive home lives. I could give many more examples.

Not everyone chooses their situation, and often those that do have made poor choices in life after a very, very poor start in life.

If you've grown up in a household where your dad abuses your mum, your parents don't work and are alcoholics, they kept you awake all night rowing and having parties so you struggled at school. Well you're not going to be in good stead for your future job prospects and relationships are you?

That type of life is the harsh reality for many kids in this country.

are there even enough jobs for us all to be employed full time?
of course not!

A weird worldview to me. The 'state' are the schools I use, the hospitals, the roads the shops, the people I talk too. Some bits of the 'State' collect money from us to support those roads/schools/hospitals/police. Other bits collect money from me, known as 'taxes' to support the elderly, unemployed, disabled and children. When I become old or disabled or sick I get some back.
We are all 'clients of the state'. Even the rich but I do fine it odd that people freak about 'the state'.

So because some people don't claim, those with overpayments or who commit fraud shouldn't be chased?

The very fact that that is all you can say about my last post tells me you are just on here to shit stir.

Forget the unclaimed benefits. HMRC has estimated that what they are owed in unpaid tax is THIRTY TIMES MORE than what the DWP thinks benefit fraud is.

Those figures are from the departments themselves. The richest in our society are cheating the state out of THIRTY TIMES MORE money than the poorest in our society. Yet the government are still targeting the poor. FFS. In what world is that OK?

?
More and more jobs are lost to technology as corporations continually seek to maximize profits.
It's a game of mu?sical chairs with a rapidly dwindling supply of chairs

A weird worldview to me. The 'state' are the schools I use, the hospitals, the roads the shops, the people I talk too. Some bits of the 'State' collect money from us to support those roads/schools/hospitals/police. Other bits collect money from me, known as 'taxes' to support the elderly, unemployed, disabled and children. When I become old or disabled or sick I get some back.
We are all 'clients of the state'. Even the rich but I do fine it odd that people freak about 'the state'.

I pay my taxes and that's about as much of a relationship as I want with the state. I use the roads because it makes no sense for me to build my own and that's a very good use of state resources. Otherwise I'd prefer to sort things out on my own, that's not me "freaking out" it's my preference to keep my money and spend it as I see fit, rather than how some bureaucrat thinks my money should be spent.

Can l clarify something please.
How many hours would a couple need to make between them?
Is it 35 or 70?
Opinions seem to change.
My Dh makes about 1.50 over min wage. What would l need to do when UTC comes in? Our youngest is six.
Thank you. :)

Goodbye I assume that you won't call the police then if you're a victim of crime, the fire brigade of you're house is on fire, an ambulance if you're having a heart attack? I assume that you don't want your bins collected or to take it to a tip?

Pyjama I never intended for my list to be exhaustive. You can add police services to roads!

I wouldn't call an ambulance if I were having a heart attack, I'd have my husband drive me (scandalous waiting times) and then I'd be happy to be transferred to a private hospital at the earliest possible instance - that's why we pay for private insurance.

You'd have your husband drive you? How ridiculous, he might not be around. You could at any time find yourself in a position where you need to call an ambulance.

My point is that there are state services that you and everybody else use without even thinking about it.

Just because you choose to opt out of some of them doesn't mean that they aren't still essential.

Pyjama, you're missing my point entirely - I was responding to the point made my caroledecker quite a way upstream which was that Gordon Brown had essentially created "clients" of the state and further tried to force even private payroll payments through the state which is ridiculous.

And then someone said, why do people get so hysterical about the state being involved in their business.

I have very little interaction with the state apart from the NHS being my gateway into health care. I pay my taxes so I'll use the police and roads as necessary. These are essential public services. I don't want the state intervening any further than this.

The State trained those doctors, nurses and teachers you use. Like I said, we are all part of 'the state'. To be honest, rather than arse around deciding what bit of my money goes where it is easier if it's collected as taxes and distributed. Of course I disagree with some places it goes like wars and corporations but for tops up to shit wages, those who just cant find the extra hours work because they dont exist I dont have a problem. I reckon until their is 100% employment and liveable wages people are going to have to be supported and not in frigging workhouses which seems to be where we are heading.

• there