AIBU to expect those on benefits to pay tax on their benefits?

[DistinguishedSocialCommentator]

Hi

Reading a thread on MN, I noted a FM stating that a financial org a well respected one cited that the tax system in England should be fair and "balanced" tax system, and their meaning of "balance" is different to mine

IMO, a "balanced" tax system is where those on benefits inc Housing benefit, should pay taxes if they are getting over the nations/England's tax free allowance that most working people get, IE £12,570 a year 2023/2024

Some on benefits, even though benefits have been so-called capped - are still getting a lot, lot more than those in work. Most working people also have travelling costs and in London that can easily equate to a hundred pounds a week

AIBU to tell the lame government to tax those on benefits that are getting more than the tax allowance of £12,570 - Inc in benefits the cash payments via bank, the Housing benefits, and the reductions they get in council tax.

IMO, it is only fair to those that are working many hours a week often 40/50 hours and two hours of traveling time and in london many paying around a hundred quid in travel costs and having to endure nasty managers and co-workers and abuse as they travel to and back from work

IMO, the above would indeed be a "balanced" tax regime and possibly encourage some back to work

NB: Feel free to agree or disagree but rest assured I will ignore nasty, rude posts. There are millions on benefits and IMO my proposal needs to be considered . It could be my proposal is fundamentally flawed and or needs tweaks - therefore, helpful comments will be fully considered

I'm not goid a spelling no ...does that make you feel better plus I suffer MH too hooe you have fun mocking me too

Good...before you start

I work full 42 hours a week and I get UC. I pay more in tax than I get in UC. No UC would mean I couldn’t pay for childcare so I can work.

For every £1 I earn over tax allowance I pay tax + NI + pension then UC reduce my entitlement by 55% of what’s left. So I’ve got down to about 27p then student loan wants 9p so am down to 18p to pay for childcare. I’m pretty working longer hours costs me more than working 30 hours a week due to childcare costs already. I do it because I’m hoping for career progression.

However make UC taxable and make life harder for working parents and let’s see how many can be pushed out the workforce. Great plan 👍

Do you ACTUALLY understand how much money 'people on benefits' ACTUALLY have to live on ?

The reality is..( NOT THE DAILY MAILS ASSUMPTIONS) is quite different. Assuming no one is scamming the system..

The common set up of single mum with two kids of different sexes .. aged 10 and 13. So needs a 3 bed. No social housing available so it's private rent.. but NO private rents are commensurate with the UC housing allowance.

She gets .. 1013 to live on per month and out of that she will have to pay at least £210 out of that to cover rent .. council tax (the help for council tax is now about 60%) so THE REALITY is that she is living on £700 per month .. and out of that has to pay £45 council tax, aprox £100 in electric , gas £50 leaving £500 ish for food, tv licence , internet , mobile .. and transport ..

And you want to TAX her ???

But the benefits are paid out of taxation so taxing them is a weird circular nonsense plan involving tons of admin to take back a portion of money in tax out of money given out from taxation in the first place. Still, it could create new jobs for "tax credit taxation admin officer" which would be great for getting people off benefits for sure

I already get sort of taxed OP. £305 a month on care charges, how would i survive if taxed as well.

YABU

Actually what they need to do is provide real subsided childcare for say 12hrs a day so that childcare issues is not a legitimate reason why someone cannot work more hours. Also get all the single parents with hard earned careers back to them!

If then people choose to work less than full time knowing that there is childcare available then they should be seen as a choice and not eligible for benefits

E.g. my partner and I decided to have a family and I want to be a SAHP and we will live off my partners wage.

Well that's my rough proposal anyway

You know invest in the education and development of future generations from infancy

Well you could but wouldn't that just result in having to give more in the first place to account for the tax?
It wouldn't create more tax in real terms because it would just be going back out again.

I think a better proposal is to not have people on such low wages that they are the same or less than benefits, or indeed need benefits as a top up, and I don't mean cut benefits I mean increase wages.

Then tackle things like toxic employers, ridiculous costs for travel and the costs associated with working.

But that would mean loss of profits for big companies, which would never do, and possibly make smaller businesses struggle. My proposal there is to increase nmw to the point where no individual needs to claim in work benefits and if the company can't sustain that then they are the ones that apply for the benefits and are subject to the same types of rules that individuals are when it comes to income, assets and savings (obviously profits for businesses).
That means huge companies turning billions in profit get a no and have to pay their staff themselves, and smaller businesses get the help so people stay employed. I wonder how much that would save on the benefits bill? Upset a few people though wouldn't it.
Individuals could then claim above this if they have particular circumstances like disability.

it's interesting that @Nicetobenice7 seems to have not been here long but already has issues with long term members 'not you again' to quote another thread and an interesting posting style - I mean it's just an odd thing is all - not hinting at anything nefarious - just an observation. Unless it's a name change?

anyway if they are 'new' - a heads up @Nicetobenice7 the OP is a well known goady person who isn;t very well equipped to engage with the debates they start - and generally starts debates designed to get a reaction - hope that enlightens you as a newby

Perhaps she could consider standing for Parliament as she believes she has so many ideas that government should take on board.

It’s not the benefits that are wrong, it’s the amount workers are paid.

Worker’s should not have to claim benefits to top up wages. Workers should be able to afford everything they need, including child care - it’s the companies paying basic wages for skilled workers to blame.

Not sure that the OP is actually a living, breathing entity - the lack of cognitive ability, self awareness and inability to construct a comprehensible, readable sentence indicate otherwise. Probably a ghastly chat bot or something of that ilk...

This.

I mean seriously its pathetic isn't it.

There are only two posters on Mumsnet who I recognise.
One is because they are consistently lovely and kind, but take no shit.

The other is goady and their posts are always inflammatory, designed to rile people up.

Guess which you are op.

And to answer your question. You would need to pay those on benefits more so they can pay the tax you suggest. So it would be absolutely pointless.

Why do you insist on shitting on people op? Does it make you feel big?

Don't be rude to AI, they will remember when they come for us.

True - watch it Sarah Connor

The OP is clearly delusional and not very bright. Yawn.
it’s the people voting YANBU that’s worrying!

Do you even understand what benefits ARE?

Why? Universal credit is paid at a level to subsist a very (very) basic standard of living. Taxing it would only result in the rising of it and also increasing the administration around it.

Which I suppose would increase employment in HMRC, which is the only logical benefit of your proposition. Not one I agree with mind.

I assume the OP typed this while admiring the view from their ivory tower 🙄

We live in Sweden, despite being in more junior positions as we had to re-start our careers we’re better off. One reason for that is our fulltime childcare for our two year old is around £84 a month, all of our sons wrap around care is free until he turns 12. If any of that nurses children are under school age she is going to have a very large childcare bill in the UK. Social housing is common here and not looked down on, those on lower income have access to additional benefits. All school meals are free.

We pay less tax here than we did in the UK.

I rather thought he typed it whilst admiring the hot air blowing out of his fundament!

Benefits like UC are not generous so why would you take away some of that in taxes?

maybe if we are lucky the ok will vanish in a cloud of their own hot air 🙄