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?

There is good quality academic research into the real situation.

A lot of false content on social media is created specifically to make people angry. If you're engaging with that type of content the algorithm will feed you more, and more.

This is just patently not true. According to Google we've now had 6 consecutive quarters of negative business confidence which is the longest streak since 2008. And what is the number one concern right now? "Cost pressures due to taxation". 63% of businesses cite it is as a primary concern due to increases in employer NIC. This is on top of wage inflation, energy prices, low consumer spending and a weak investment climate.

Except wasn't your industry the worst for pretending to be self-employed when you were on fixed reoccurring contracts for years. That's what brings the perception that self employed don't see tax payments the same as PAYE.

Let’s be fair it’s been 24 hours! This only so much he can do

Quite. We have 24 barbers shop in my nearest large town. Most take cash only. Ditto nail bars. Raid and raid again. Yet they are still here, still taking cash only

You tax their assets, which are in the UK- why do people assume income tax is the only kind of tax?

Did you mean to quote me?

They aren't dodging tax. By being cash only they can launder money easily.

It is inevitably a part of all discussions on welfare but it would be completely disingenuous to allow another poster's comment to stand that lifting the two child cap was basically irrelevant to most because of the wider benefit cap. This just isn't true as the vast majority of households have an exemption from the cap and most exemptions are due to disability.

So removing the two child cap meant the lots of families could claim a lot more money. So the families I referred in my OP could indeed take home tens of thousands of pounds more each year. I wasn't being misleading or omitting important facts as was implied.

We've also had - the more kids people have the higher chance one will be disabled so they will get more benefits
This was your paraphrasing which implies I believe that people are having more children so that they can have a disabled one and receive more benefits. I don't think this nor did I ever insinuate it.

I wanted to clarify my point and to reiterate the facts on this matter. Almost half of households subject to the two child cap have a household member with a disability. This isn't massively surprising considering the stats around the prevelance of disability. These households won't be subject to the benefit cap and will often be receiving benefits in the magnitude of those quoted in the newspaper when the two child cap was lifted.

As did my mum. 😀

Money laundering is not only tax dodging, it’s often crime too. They are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed there aren't. And many of the lower-paid, minimum-wage jobs fall within the realms of precarious employment.

Take my recent graduate for example. He is taking a year out to save for his Masters. He found a retail job. 16 hours a week. He'd rather work full-time but it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. Every week he is given his rota. Sometimes he gets his contracted 16 hours, sometimes more. What is absolutely consistent is the inconsistency. The hours and days he works change every week - he can be rota'd to work on any day of the week, and at any time between 8am and 8pm. It would be impossible to work a second job to increase his earnings because what other employer is going to employ someone who has no idea of their availability.

As it happens he has been promoted and now has more hours and more pay. But had he not been living with his generous parents and was needing to support himself or a family, he would be needing support from the state. Not because he's feckless or lazy but because that sort of precarious employment is commonplace.

Hilarious - we live in a society where my husband and I get up every morning and go to work and my neighbour does not but earns more than us combined on benefits. Constantly told we are mugs. That is not the society I want to live in.

Absolutely! There is a thread running on here where OP has a adult child who has a zero hour contract job, and gets 2 hours work a week. No one can live on that, and like you said, you are expected to be available for more hours if they come up.

Not mugs, but gullible. No single person is claiming enough in benefits that is more than two people working. Benefits are not that generous.

I mean people say this kind of stuff all the time. But they can never ever back it up with stats. Just anecdotes. The reason being it's a viewpoint, influenced by a particular agenda, with nothing more to back it up than if I said it's a lifestyle choice to have blue eyes.

As for "personal responsibility", I'll never understand why people are happy to parrot that phrase. It seems so obvious that it's a concept put about by the powerful within our socio economic system to shift collective responsibility, and in particular their own responsibility for our appalling economic state, onto the powerless individual. Let's face it there's got to be a reason why they keep increasing their wealth while we fight for crumbs. They normalise inequality to keep themselves at the top and tell us we're in the position we are because we choose to be.

I agree, I pay more tax now than when I was employed. I’d love to hear what these loopholes are. Not a penny goes through my company that isn’t taxed now, or in the future. It’s changed a lot compared to 20 years ago, rightly so in some cases, but now enough to deter people taking the leap.

You're echoing George Osborne's incredibly ideological speech of 2012 where he tried to make people angry about their neighbours blinds being down in the morning. It was written specifically to gain support for "austerity", the policy of slashing public services and dismantling the welfare state. The coalition govt had to do something to address the crisis within capitalism caused by the global financial crash, otherwise the very economic foundations of late stage capitalism would collapse and jeopardise the position of the powerful. So they fooled people into believing that they were the problem, or more accurately the scrounger next door was. Worked out well for the dominant classes, I mean look at us now. Barely a functioning health service and everyone is blamed for being disabled!

It's almost beyond belief that some of us are still spouting the same crap after all these years eh? Practically word for word.

One where you get out of life what effort you put in. One where those who absolutely genuinely cannot support themselves through no fault of their own and despite best efforts, get more support than they do now as there are fewer scroungers taking from those who genuinely need state money to live a good way of life.

I want lots of provision for adults with learning disabilities to work in whatever way they can/ volunteer/ have paid for activities in the day so they lead a happy purposeful life. I know two adults in this situation dying to have a little job or volunteer but there isn't the support for them to do it. Access to work scheme support to actually be available for people with visual impairment or cerebral palsy. However currently that money isn't there because Kelly and Jayden have 5 kids and he's too anxious to work and she's got fibromyalgia so they all live off the state.

You’re arguing with a point I made to a different poster. My comment was in response to something they said. These sorts of arguments on mumsnet are so stupid.

Excuse my language but that's bollocks. Kelly and Jayden (your class prejudice is showing, why not Edward and Harriet?) are not responsible for the political choice not to provide support for people with learning disability.

Shall we also not play disability divide and rule either? Your examples of anxiety and fibromyalgia are pure fodder.

Which statistics show this?

I listed them upthread if you can be bothered to find the post. For example 13% of young people are NEETs nationally but this rises to 20% in some areas. Around half of these people claim benefits. I'm from a deprived area so it's statistically likely that I will know a few of these young people (which I do!). I'm not some strange anomaly. I find it more bizarre that people claim to know nobody who is similar to the type of people I describe in my OP. They must be a statistical anomaly or move in small and homogenous circles.

I find it so odd that you want to challenge the concept of 'personal responsibility' as if it's some weird construct designed by the powerful to suppress the poor when in reality it liberates the poor. State dependency is bad for the individual and society and should be avoided wherever possible. You are literally putting yourself at the mercy of every electorate and every subsequent government decision. Encouragingly independence and self reliance is vital

I have literally just come from a thread where a young woman is making a profound life choice that could ultimately lead to a life of dependency on the state for herself and her future child. Many of us have faced similar crossroads before where we are conflicted between what we would ideally like to do and what is sensible and responsible. If we all opt for the latter approach then society ultimately breaks down. How many of us can take advantage of a safety net before it becomes overloaded and begins to snap under the weight of everybody?