Tory avoids huge tax bill but we have to pay

[mrshess]

This story makes me sick.
People are losing homes and going without food and this tory gets away with this!!!
Really Cameron are we in this together????

I think not

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11415870

No one should have the option of living on state benefits in an area such as London with high rates of employment and incredibly high house prices and rents.

Anyone on benefits should have a duty to minimise the costs to the tax payer by living in a low cost area and trying to get a job in another area. Gone are the days where you live in one place and just expect a job to appear a mile down the road and refuse to move to get a job.

There are plenty of jobs available in London though so if you really are looking for a job you should be able to find one.

Horses for courses - if LA can legally avoid paying tax then people with 10 kids and no work can legally claim benefits no matter how unsavoury the DM types think them. Same difference no?

Basic state pension isn't means tested, no, & it's over £5000 a year now - I bet Lord Ashcroft claims it. And his Freedom pass for public transport

and his winter fuel allowance

"Anyone on benefits should have a duty to minimise the costs to the tax payer by living in a low cost area and trying to get a job in another area."

Let's begin shooting the fish in this particular barrel with perhaps the most obvious point.

Who will businesses employ?

People in expensive areas who loose their jobs will have a duty to move somewhere cheaper. So people in London who become unemployed will have to move away.

So if my business needs a new person to work in London who will I employ? The only people left there will be those who aren't on benefits, so those already in a job or those who don't need one.

You need a pool of people looking for work so that a business can find it's staff.

And then how will the people who live in London feel about this?

London and the SE, the area I believe you would classify as expensive, are net wealth generators for the Government. They generate more money for the Government than they receive in spending.

Cheaper areas such as the North are net wealth consumers for the Government. The receive more in spending than they generate in Government income.

So the people in the SE are all good when they're funding this country but the moment they need some help they get ripped away from their social structures and sent to live somewhere else.

The only party who would consider doing something like this would be the Tory party but doing it would break their support in the SE and London and ruin the party.

Quite, quite ridiculous.

Badgerpaws - I am struggling with this.

"So if my business needs a new person to work in London who will I employ? The only people left there will be those who aren't on benefits, so those already in a job or those who don't need one.

You need a pool of people looking for work so that a business can find it's staff."

Believe it or not, people living in the North and Midlands can still look for jobs in the South East. The South East employers can attract unemployed people from the North and Midlands. It is not a closed box.

Would you not employ someone who lived in the North or Midlands? I dont understand your point at all.

"The statement that no-one who lives in an area like London should depen on benefits should be qualfies to say no-one who lives in London who is able to work should depend on benefits."

So someone who looses their job and gets JSA, so they're able to work and depend on benefits, is exiled from London?

Read my post above, but in general who will businesses in London be able to employ if all the unemployed in London are basically deported and how do you think tax payers in the SE and London will feel about this?

"Believe it or not, people living in the North and Midlands can still look for jobs in the South East."

The talk has been about moving those dependant on benefits out of London. How will those people be able to afford to get down to London for interviews and assessments? Train fares and possible overnight stays in hotels are not cheap.

So would the Government help fund people to attend interviews?

Which would be expensive.

So just ruthlessly counting the pennies and forgetting the human aspect wouldn't it just be cheaper to leave people where they are?

"So someone who looses their job and gets JSA, so they're able to work and depend on benefits, is exiled from London?"

It doesn't have to be London. There are expensive locations all over the country. My lifestyle depends on me earning a particular amount of money. If I lost my job tomorrow and couldn't find another I would eventually not be able to support my mortgage payments and I doubt if benefits would cover the difference. I would have no choice but to move to a cheaper location. It's not 'exile' but living in expensive areas is privilege, not a right.

I should add that people from overseas... the much maligned 'migrant worker'... seem totally capable of upping sticks, not simply to another town but to another country in the search for a better lifestyle. Why are we so welded to one spot?

Chili1234 - absolutley. If I can no longer afford my private rent I will have to move somewhere cheaper. In fact I moved out of London a decade ago for that very reason when DW lost her job and I was not working.

Riven - the example I cited earlier of people 'camping' in North London so they could work is effectively a shanty town of working people. Meanwhile people live in houses in central Lonon on benefits wo do not work and do not intend to work. That is mad.

The initial statement was "no-one who lives in London who is able to work should depend on benefits".

But now you're saying that their can be "periods between work"

So you can actually "depend on benefits" for some period of time.

How long is that period?

It's "irritating" when someone proposes something with a vague statement and then adds lots of wriggle room to that and vague get out clauses.

Exactly how should the system work?

But Riven - if I fall on hard times tomorrow, I could not possibly expect to remain where I am in one of the most expensive parts of the country.

I can't expect hard working families, living in small flats, in not-so-nice areas to fund my spacious home in the country for me.

I'd have to sell up and move somehwere cheaper. I fully understand that and would expect it.

I vcan expect, I feel, the state to act as a back up, a safetey net, but not keep in my home just because I like it.

"I think it is quite usual to make general propositions of this kind without necessarily boiling them down to concrete legislative proposals, but if it passes the time for you, by all means try."

OK so it's just a general comment that people shouldn't be able to live a life of "benefit dependency"? And that has no particular bearing on London or other areas with a high cost of living?

Which is fair enough.

However some people do seriously seem to be saying that something should be done about people in such areas who are on benefits.

And the response to that has got to be to ask exactly what they think should be done and to ask how they would differentiate benefits dependency from those periods of support that we all need from time to time.

"But Riven - if I fall on hard times tomorrow, I could not possibly expect to remain where I am in one of the most expensive parts of the country."

At the moment if you bought the place you might be able to get help with your mortgage interest payments (just the interest mind, not the capital) up to a value of £200,000. So there is already a limit that hits people in expensive areas.

If you're renting then if your landlord is willing he might let to you with benefits paying the rent. However there are limits on this too at the moment and with a hard cap on the way that really will hit people in expensive areas.

So there are already systems in place that help, but place limits that hit those in expensive areas.

What, if any, changes are you proposing?