To not understand why so many people view the wealth of others as public property

[FrogspawnSmoothie]

I've been noticing a lot of posts lately saying things like 'we need to sort out the wealth divide' etc and calling for the wealthy to pay for xyz 'because they can afford to', and I must say I've never quite shared this mentality.

I can see why people start to think this way when we're constantly told things like '99% of the nation's wealth is owned by 1% of the population', making it sound like they're hoarding resources. But the thing is, it's not a tin of biscuits given to the population which is now being hoarded by a few greedy chubsters. It may well have been foreign investment, for instance, which wasn't otherwise going to be invested in a UK business to then benefit the economy through taxes as it does. I go to work and earn my income, and that money is mine - I imagine most people would consider their paycheck to be their own.

I think of it like two farmers. One innovates in his processes and works out how to grow more apples with the same resources. He then reinvests his extra profit into better equipment and buys more land. Eventually, he owns 75% of the apples in the town, despite being only one of many farmers. I'm not convinced he now needs to start giving his apples to the other disgruntled farmers who envy his wealth, especially as he's now paying much more tax.

I'll admit it's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it (I'm no economist) but I'm not convinced that all the people moaning about the rich have given it a particularly nuanced consideration either. I was listening to some prat of a manbunned barista banging on about socialism and 'redistribution of wealth' in Costa today, and gotta admit I just thought to myself 'sounds like you should've worked harder at school, mate.' 🤷‍♀️

@LonginesPrime

This seems a strange angle to pick too - you’re ignoring the ignorance the OP has shown in his benefit/disability/poverty bashing but are telling me off for assuming he’s male?

I'm not sure what led you conclude that I'm ignoring the OP's ignorance - have you actually RTFT?

You also seem to be assuming that I’m female and straight

Are you sure you're not assuming that I'm assuming that? I suggested you were hypocritical in accusing someone else of being ignorant. I'm not sure whether you see these as stereotypically female traits or if you've got something else in mind.

I’ve been on this thread from the beginning. The OP is male. I couldn’t give shit if you think that’s hypocritical of me, that’s a lazy argument that you’re going to have to have with yourself.

@echt

£35 billion in tax avoidances in 2019.

That’s a lot, isn’t it? Be interesting to see how that figure balances with the one we’re definitely going to get from the OP on false benefit claims.

Are these tax avoidances illegal? If not, then people are going to take advantage of them.

It's not just about false benefit claims either. As I stated earlier, it's also about a system where you can be worse off for working (or working more) which is a little perverse.

Forgetting my personal anecdotes, I've seen a fair few people on here saying they've turned down promotions as they'd be worse off, either throughout of benefits or increased tax - one was declining a £6k pay rise.

It's better for the economy that these people earn more and put it back into the economy rather than decline it and continue to claim more.

'through loss of benefits' that should've been.

@FrogspawnSmoothie

It's not just about false benefit claims either. As I stated earlier, it's also about a system where you can be worse off for working (or working more) which is a little perverse.

Forgetting my personal anecdotes, I've seen a fair few people on here saying they've turned down promotions as they'd be worse off, either throughout of benefits or increased tax - one was declining a £6k pay rise.

It's better for the economy that these people earn more and put it back into the economy rather than decline it and continue to claim more.

How much does this amount to?

The only way I can see working more as being an issue is if you are a couple with childcare costs.

So universal free childcare would be the answer.

False benefit claims 1.5 billion at the moment, according to the bbc. It’s higher than usual and includes organised crime. But still way less than tax avoidance.

it's also about a system where you can be worse off for working (or working more) which is a little perverse

That used to happen for people trying to come off of tax credits/income support in the past but AFAIK that's not the case for Universal Credit - other finances/circumstances aside, you're always supposed to be better off working than claiming UC.

I went on to UC during furlough. I am much better off working, and I am on a very low wage.

it's also about a system where you can be worse off for working (or working more) which is a little perverse.

Myth

The only way I can see working more as being an issue is if you are a couple with childcare costs.

Agreed, and that's another issue IMO. The people I was talking about were those who said they could work more but we're choosing not too as wouldn't be much better off.

That used to happen for people trying to come off of tax credits/income support in the past but AFAIK that's not the case for Universal Credit - other finances/circumstances aside, you're always supposed to be better off working than claiming UC.

I may be somewhat out of date, as the discussion I referenced was a thread on here about a year ago.

‘suggestion that we indefinitely support those who are able to work but choose not to‘

‘But you have to ask yourself, why would people chose this life?‘

I would love to not have to work. I could spend time with family and pets. I could volunteer. Instead I am going to be moving heavy stuff around in retail into my sixties, wrecking my back and knees like so many of my colleagues.

But isn’t actually an option just to not go to work and live on benefits, regardless of the OP’s beliefs.

But isn’t actually an option just to not go to work and live on benefits, regardless of the OP’s beliefs.

That's not what I said.

I'm talking about people who claim when they could work, like my mate's brother who couldn't survive without his mum subbing him, but also claims benefits too when he could work instead. Or the guy who came in as a temp who wouldn't come back as he wanted to use the gov scheme which would avoid him forking out £2k for his HGV license (as long as he wasn't working).

Well indeed, I wouldn’t want to have depression and be on SSRIs and have to see the doctor for years on end. I would rather work.

But I don’t see a solution to that while mental health services are so underfunded and useless. But again, that costs money, which someone has to be taxed to pay for.

These you only succeed posts piss me off for want of a better phrase. You realise society would grind to a halt if someone didn't lift the bins, professionally clean, stack shelves in your supermarket, care for the vulnerable. The last 5 month shave shown us all how valuable these jobs are. I don't claim to know the politics and socioeconomics behind it all but the wealth gap is vast. It seems incredibly unjust that you can work incredibly hard 40+ hours a week and still be living hand to mouth.

I’ve found this thread a bit Dickensian. He wrote a lot about social inequalities and I can’t help wondering if we are are reverting to the attitudes he describes.

I'm talking about people who claim when they could work, like my mate's brother who couldn't survive without his mum subbing him, but also claims benefits too when he could work instead

But if he couldn't survive without his mum's support, he would have to go to work. That's the family's choice as to how they support each other and as to what the mum does with her own finances, in the same way a banker is entitled to spend the net income from their six figure salary as they wish.

If you're saying that the reason he's able to survive a life on benefits is because his family subsidises him, then this doesn't support the notion that the state benefits system enables benefit claimants to live on UC when they are able to work. It sounds like his lifestyle is facilitated by a private financial arrangement enabled by the family's own money.

The money would go into better health care, schools, environmental protection, government owned utilities, etc. It's not like the wealthy would be being asked to top everyone's wages up, just to subsidise wages with social programs so companies can pay people less.

If you're saying that the reason he's able to survive a life on benefits is because his family subsidises him, then this doesn't support the notion that the state benefits system enables benefit claimants to live on UC when they are able to work.

I'm more talking about people claiming benefits unnecessarily, than as an absolute replacement.

My friend's brother doesn't really need them. His mum feeds and houses him and benefits are his disposable income. I'm not sure exactly what the situation is but he's defo been getting them for almost five years.

The guy at work is another example. Being offered regular warehouse work but would prefer to only do a day a week so he can qualify for the government training grant (rather than work and pay for his license).

And the people who work for my mate who can't do more than 15 hours or they'd lose their benefits or something (this may have now changed though, I'm not sure).

I don't know how you police this though and sort the genuine from the blaggers. I remember also that my ex-housemate's friend used to claim child benefit and do undeclared work as a cleaner each week (my housemate worked FT and always complained her friend was better off). I do wonder if this is more common than we know, as most office workers won't likely experience much if this. Also knew an agency truck driver who told me he was claiming benefits as well as working. Maybe I've just encountered more than most but I'm convinced that a lot of money is pissed away on the non needy.

Lots of people are entitled to benefits (child, disability, tax credits) while also working.

Obviously there are some benefits (or now, some elements of UC) that people are only eligible for if unemployed, but there's a far greater range of support to supplement people's wages.

It's a very small subsection of benefits claimants who are able to continue to claim without working if they're fit for work - once children get to a certain age, their parents are expected to look for work if they're claiming benefits and jobseekers are obviously expected to seek jobs too. Claimants don't get paid UC if they don't do these things.

There are far more caps and eligibility restrictions on benefits than there used to be. A life on UC isn't fun and isn't something anyone who's experienced it would want to do for any longer than necessary.

Are these tax avoidances illegal?

No, because the people who benefit from them make the laws. Your HGV Licence example isn’t illegal either yet for some reason you have a massive downer on that.

You still haven’t said how much is going towards false benefit claims though! You must know, otherwise why would be annoyed about it?

It wouldn’t be because it’s easier to bash the poor than to force the rich to have a social responsibility, would it?

E.M. Forster illustrated a lot of these ideas rather elegantly in Howard's End. He sets the right-wing but practical Wilcoxes against the compassionate but misguided Schlegels. Ultimately neither of them do anything to help the genuinely needy characters in the novel.

One hundred and ten years later, very similar debates are still rumbling on...