To be sick of politicians using 'fairness' as justification for tax rises?

[Itchthescratch]

Fairness is completely subjective and I notice that this is often shorthand for giving more money to those that contribute the least.

Of course there will always be those that can't contribute much due to factors outside of their control, but we are kidding ourselves if we pretend that there aren't already lots of people that are scraping by doing the bare minimum (sometimes even less) and making completely irresponsible decisions knowing the state will ultimately insulate them from the consequences.

I personally know people that have had lots of children that they can't afford and can't parent properly simply because they wanted to. They are now on an incredible amount of money as the two child cap has been lifted. I know people that have stopped working because they weren't much better off than being on benefits and they couldn't be bothered with the hassle. I know young people that are already planning to stay on disability benefits their whole lives for mental health issues as they want to stay home and game.

Is it really 'fair' to charge the rest of us more to subsidise all of this?

Right, this isn't about DLA. Stop trying to hijack the thread. My point is that there are ways that the benefits cap can be lifted. Disability is one of them or you can work a pretty low number of hours.

I'm so tired of posters trying to hijack everything thread to make it about disbaolity benefits. There are loads of threads about that already. Go and have the debate there where you can shame people for even questioning whether they spiraling bill is out of control.

It isn't exactly the same but ultimately the basics are pretty similar if you can't stimulate growth which we seem unable to do.

Er, you were the one who posted that the more children you have the more likely one will have a disability.

I posted that benefits are capped.

You immediately posted back to me about disability benefits so YOU brought it up.

Not me.

Absolutely, and even that ignores the fact that it's the business owner's capital that is at risk in the first place (and in many cases, that means charges over assets including your house!)

Some people can't think straight for the evil corporate capitalist fat cat images in their head, which mostly bear no relation to reality.

No, I definitely question your morals. There's the issue of 'stamping out abuse of the system' meaning that genuine claimants lose out, and there's the issue of demonising/sitagmising people who genuinely need benefits and blaming them for all of our problems. Don't act like you don't know that that is exactly what threads like this do.

In terms of actual money lost or wasted, there is far more to be found at the top. Yet some people choose to focus on the poor and disabled, despite both issues above. So yes that's why I question your morals.

No, you said benefits were capped. I said they weren't always such as in the case of disability in the household. Someone, can't remember if it was you, said it had to be the parents. I pointed out children were included. You asked (stupidly!) if I wanted my child to be disabled. I simply pointed out that the more kids you had the more chance you would have a child with a disability. You roll the dice every time. It's what most parents factor into their family planning decisions. Almost half of families that were subject to the two child benefit cap has a disability in the household and therefore will have the cap lifted for this reason. It's very relevant to discussions on benefits caps in terms of how many people are actually subject to them. I don't intend to have a whole debate about DLA. That is a separate discussion.

. I have also mentioned working 16 hours will also remove the cap.

The role of growth is a major difference.

It is completely disingenuous to compare national economies with household finances.

Whether something will generate growth is a different question.

A separate factor is whether increased money at household level could reduce future costs.

There's the issue of 'stamping out abuse of the system' meaning that genuine claimants lose out, and there's the issue of demonising/sitagmising people who genuinely need benefits and blaming them for all of our problems
Right, so in your world we just let the welfare bill continue to spiral. We let people rinse the system dry until there is so little left for genuine claimants that they can't get the support they need. Meanwhile we kill the economy by trying to support this whole facade.

If you genuinely care about the poor and vulnerable then you would want a sustainable system that's fit for purpose. We don't want an IMF bailout or similar because we couldn't get a grip on our spending and we run out of working people to tax.

We haven't had significant growth since 2007. The idea that bungs like the £45 VAT relief will bring it about is just pie in the sky. If it were that easy then we wouldn't be in the state we are in. So without growth and a meaningful plan for growth, it is pretty similar to household finances and should be managed accordingly.

I think 'fairness' might be about giving every child a decent start despite their parents. I completely agree with this idea. The problem is that then you can have people using their children for an income. So hard to help the vulnerable without indulging the lazy.

It’s not disingenuous. Obviously there are differences. But ultimately all governments face fiscal constraints and household finances are a sensible analogy to explain those constraints to non-specialist voters.

There is widespread agreement among investors and economists that the UK currently faces particularly acute fiscal constrains so it’s no use saying “oh but this particular fiscal stimulus will generate some marginal GDP growth.” Especially at a time when inflation is stubbornly above target and a good Keynesian would recommend government run a fiscal surplus rather than an ever increasing deficit.

Are you personally paying peoples benefits?

I'm a net tax contributor so it is one of the things I'm funding.

🤣

Who do you think is funding the welfare bill? Honestly I don't think you are coming across as coherent on this thread at all.

I never said we let it continue to spiral. But there are issues that need properly and sensibly addressing, without a media frenzy and without stigmatising people on benefits.

What actually is the point of your thread? What are you contributing to the conversation? It's just rehashing the tired old 'some people are FALSELY CLAIMING benefits and TAXPAYERS have to pay for it!!!' Yes we know. Is your thread doing anything other than making people suspicious of those on benefits? Are we all to spy on our neighbours and see if we can spot who is and isn't a genuine claimant?

This is it - it's just moan, moan, UNDESERVING scroungers are getting MAH money! Sometimes I wonder if these posts are just written to stir up discontent among the MN masses.

I asked OP if she had any ideas for a better, fairer system - she said she did, she just didn't feel like airing them here. 💁

Exactly. I'm fed up of people being bitter, selfish, and moaning about vulnerable groups of people on MN with absolutely nothing productive or helpful to contribute.

Other countries don’t do this - so it’s pretty obvious there are other ways of sharing the tax pot- like there are also ways of providing healthcare

It’s not mn it’s a gov problem.

Look at Pat McFadden summing up his own party:
‘Every meeting I have is “who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others”.

Ah. I see my irony died in transit. Ok, I'll dispense with it: the biggest issue facing Britain today isn't benefit cheats (yes I've known one or two), nor yet the well-off wanting to keep more of their wealth, whether hard-earned or handed over by forebears, so that they can hand it over to their offspring. It's the supra-national super-rich and their offshored wealth being taken out of circulation.

I don't have a problem with the rich being rich, within reason. But spend the money. In the UK. That way, it gets taxed and "contributes" as you put it. People who "work the benefits system" are morally base, sure, but economically pretty insignificant. How is hoarding billions any less reprehensible? But somehow society doesn't seem to count that as a personal or institutional failing - quite the opposite. We glorify money, but reserve our disapproval for the smallest of small-time grifters. All that tax Jeff Bezos doesn't pay (quite legally) is much more of a drain on your resources than the feckless woman with 6 kids down the council estate. Tell you what, I want to see him brought to book way more than her.

Okay, so if we ignore my single child household, and the many others I know from obviously being in that specific community, and the many others who have two children who are both disabled…

I don’t fundamentally disagree with having a disability in the household lifting the benefit cap. The cost of disability can be huge, and it cannot always be adequately planned for, without not having children at all. We’ve only got one, so not having multiples wouldn’t have helped. We have one specifically because of his disability.

Having disability in your household also makes it significantly harder to work or enhance your income.

So, IMO, it’s fair that it does lift the benefit cap, because those benefits may be your only viable income opportunity.

I’d make clear here that I don’t claim benefits, of any kind, aside from my son’s DLA. Both myself and my partner work full time, and pay HR tax. So I have no skin in the UC game.

Also Pat McFadden in the last week or two - “I don’t think the govt should be writing an open cheque for health and disability claimants”

Most of us can distinguish between people in need of benefits, and people not in need - ie people who could strive to be self sufficient, but choose not to be. People for whom welfare is designed tend not to have to protest their entitlement, because it's generally obvious.

The answer no one is giving you is simple - self responsibility. I was on benefits for about 6 months in my youth, and I fought tooth and nail to get back to full health (because I wanted more than a month to month existence). I had peers doing the opposite, fighting tooth and nail to retain benefits; the people doing that tend to be obvious, I'm afraid.

you clearly have no direct experience of running a Ltd business. Director’s loans are fully taxed. You won’t get your accounts signed off with balances on Director Loan account. Yoh may squeak it through one year with a note on the company filing that the balance was cleared in the next tax year. You can only sell a company once. You cannot draw down a regular income and circumvent the taxman.