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

Oh thanks! I've seen OP use it many times but never seen her (?) clarify its meaning.

I guess we can all use the language of our choice, but it can at times hamper understanding.

Thanks!

I read the post. I thought 'WTF'. I thought for a second. I checked the poster's username, and it all made sense.

OK - someone with the following

Works 40 hours a week on NMW
1 child aged 7
£50 a week childcare
rents flat in West Sussex at 1,500 a month

is entitled to £312 a week

My argument is that someone working FULL TIME HOURS on the NMW should NOT! need supporting by the state, and if they do then the NMW is too low

The gov, taxpayers pay the police, armed services, civil servants, mp's, lords etc - so why take tax from them? Does it make sense now?

Ok. So, let's make a simplistic argument.

It is agreed that Jane deserves £100 a week in a benefit because of <situation> to pay for <thing>.

The government could give Jane £100. Or, they could give her £125 and and tax her 20% to give her a net £100.

All the second option does is create more administration costs.

Salaries and benefits are different.

Sadly it needs to be very simple for some people to understand

What is an ‘FM’?

And State Pension, contribution based JSA.
OP never seems to do any reseach before posting nonsensical ideas. Perhaps OP is a politician.

Hello
Many thanks for that and your point re how long the others been here. I've read that many times its their way of self entitlement

Not everyone will agree with everything. Many FM's won't post for fear of being mocked/abused etc. However, at least 33% of MN's users that have seen this thread agree with the OP

Even the government had to step in to put a "cap on benefits."

Many on this forum won't like this but a small minority do play the benefits system even the UC I think its called now but choosing not to work over x hours or earnings as it impacts their benefits.

The benefits system is in place to help those that really need it that is fine Those in work should be not worse off than being on benefits - but london fares are high and something needs to be done to at least reward a little those that work vs on benefits,
When we were younger, big mortgage for that period - as all of the interest could be paid via benefits and we had three little kids - me and my OH would have been better off on benefits if we had not worked more than our 35/40 hours but we had to work and worked at least 50 hours some weeks in every month

TBH - I'm not sure what the solution is but those in the middle get hammered with tax after tax and its not fair. Those with their own property are constantly hammered - not fair

Thank you again.

Hi
Forum Member.

Thanks,

Those in work should be not worse off than being on benefits
Plenty of people are in work and receiving benefits due to shit wages.

Thanks for clarifying DSC.

On MN, the typical usage is PP (previous poster) or MNers (Mumsnetters). Obviously you're free to use whatever language you like, but these would both be more easily understood than FM.

And they have to pay commuting costs, some of them even have to travel in London 😱

The OP seems completely incapable of grasping these basic facts though and keeps wittering on with the same unimpressive dog whistle soundbites

@DistinguishedSocialCommentator

Not everyone will agree with everything. Many FM's won't post for fear of being mocked/abused etc. However, at least 33% of MN's users that have seen this thread agree with the OP.

67% - TWO THIRDS of FORUM MEMBERS (who have seen this thread, and voted,) do NOT agree with you. That is a lot of people who disagree with you @DistinguishedSocialCommentator

At this point, I would be admitting I was wrong if I were you.

Suggesting that people paying tax, on the state benefits they receive, is probably one of the batshittiest things I have ever read on here.

I'm willing to bet that you're one of those (few) posters from 2 or 3 years back who thought people who were paid furlough money by their employer - who got it from the Government, (because they couldn't go to work because of the covid19 lockdown,) should pay it all back! 😬

(Do you think the earth is flat too?)

!

At some point in the last few years the state pension has been dragged into being a benefit. Imo it isn't, working people PAY NI for their pension. And yes, I know it isn't ring fenced, but people pay in for it. Some on benefits never pay in and therefore get top ups when they retire. That's a benefit, not the actual state pension,

Lastly the biggest scandal is that housing benefit is paying landlords mortgages. People renting on low wages will never own a house and will get their housing costs oaid - the landlord gravy train.

Lowering housing costs would save far more in state benefits than any other action. Instead the government prop up house prices because too many of them make money as individuals from housing.

If benefits are so cushy OP why don't you go on them?

Maybe the OP could go on them, and then set up a petition to get benefits taxed! 😆

OP says they would have been a millionaire on benefits but didn't due to being all morally superior.

I can understand why the OP thinks people on benefits should pay tax now

Their logic being:

They pay millions of pounds in tax a year

They would have had more income if they were on benefits

Ergo people on benefits are earning millions a year and can afford to pay tax

Makes sense I guess when you look at it through their logic

Shame its utter nonsense

Except people on benefits do pay taxes.
OP knows nothing about benefits.

OP knows nothing about most subjects they post on - which is why I suspect they are faulty AI or a politician.

Thank you. I wondered was PP's were.
Thanks

On all benefits? You know the answer, hence my thread.

@DistinguishedSocialCommentator please can you tell us why you keep on using the acronym FM, when it's obvious people don't understand what it means? And when you've already been asked not to use it?