Just been on a course about new benefit system

[buggyRunner]

Christ it's a big shake up.

I say this as someone who won't be personally affected- it is harsh.

Basically if you claim any benefits other than child benefit you're probably going to have a loss.

I agree with Flatpackhampster. The current welfare state has become an incentive not to work it has also become unaffordable. There are simply not enough people in work to pay tax for all these benefits. It has come to a tipping point where we are creating debt to pay for the welfare state because it has become a behemoth. It needs to be cut back radically to what it was meant to be - a safety net for those who had fallen on hard times, the disabled. It should be time limited in my opinion like it is in most other countries so that people cannot stay on benefits for years without having to worry.

And it is ridiculous that workless families do get a pay rise for each child they have (extra tax credits and child benefit). Why should they get paid more simply because they have chosen to add to their family? Working families do not get paid more by their employers because of this. It not only breeds resentment but stops people taking responsibility for their own decisions and creates a culture of dependence (Labour loved all those guaranteed votes).

Apparently the MP Nick Boles has stated that instead of paying more money to families in the form of child tax credits, child benefits, that he thinks this money should instead be pumped into the education system so that children get a much better quality of life from the start and learn the skills necessary to contribute to society. Like the "give a man a fish" proverb. I agree with him.

You know, if ALL the money previously given in CTC and CB were pumped into a universal network of full and effective childcare from birth: creches, nurseries, schools and out-of-hours care, with a full & healthy diet, transport, medical and psychological care as well as education; I'd be in favour. But that can't happen because [a] it would cost a lot more than doling out a grand a year for each child, and [b] it would be run by cynical asset-grabbers owned by an ATOS company so care would be patchy and poor.

garlicbutter - it doesn't have to be all or nothing. There is no one perfect system anywhere in the world. But in my opinion, just continuing to throw money at workless families only incentivises them to have more kids and does nothing to break the cycle of dependency. They need to start somewhere and of course any change to a long ingrained system is going to a) cause resentment from those experiencing the change and b) take time to start working. Something has to give. The system is unaffordable and doesn't work.

OhDo - but these are just symptoms of where we are at: most people who need care in old age, will be paying for it themselves, even if they need to sell their home.

so you pay taxes, & when you need help, you pay for your help. because there are lots of demands on the tax system so anyone who can look after themselves does.

there was no treatment for DPs mum or my dad but the care they got from the state was poor/non existent. i dont think they were badly particularly treated compared with other people, just more a reflection of what the state can provide.

the demands on the welfare system are only going to increase with increasing life expectancy and as i said above 8 million people in the UK with dementia by 2050.

So what is the alternative?

That's really kind of my point. There isn't a 'realistic' alternative. Cuts are inevitable. We really have no sensible option other than to ration care to those who need it the most.

We already spend way more than we can afford. We simply cannot continue as we are. It's not about the lazy, the feckless. It's about what we can afford to do as a nation.

It's not some sort of ideological class warfare from the rich trying to oppress the poor. It's a simple case of mathematics. Income from tax = £400billion(ish). Government Outgoings = £600billion(ish).

Doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is an unsustainable overspend.

If it comes down to a straight fight between ideology & mathematics, my money will be on maths.

Tax the rich more may net us a few billion more. It still doesn't come close to addressing the root cause of the problem though which is we are spending more money than we can afford to.

A very large part of this unworkable system is due to the State subsidising poor wages. Something like 75% of housing benefits are paid to people in employment. Tax credits supplement wages too low to live on. Some people can't afford to go back to work because they'd have to leave their DC home alone and their wages won't cover childcare. That's without even looking at the fiscal equivalence of SAHMs.

Pulling funds away from the lowest income groups will create more problems. So would legislating a liveable minimum wage, but that doesn't even seem to be on the table.

I don't see how it's rational to say those without jobs must work, regardless of their personal circumstances, when that work doesn't pay enough to live on or take account of the person's capabilities.

Bear in mind the work programme's still rolling out - it provides free workers to enterprise, their 'wages' paid 100% by the State, and irrespective of their health and family needs.

I think all this anger about benefits money is directed at the wrong people. The system's real beneficiaries are corporations. I'd rather see that addressed.

... meant to add, there are between ten and fourteen job seekers for every job in the UK. Even if every job were filled, only 10% of seekers would get one. This figure comes from before the work programme rollout, so it looks safe to assume that some of those jobs will be filled by State-paid staffers.

"Get a job" doesn't make sense. Why is our government still letting billionaires off tax and subsidising employees for big businesses? Shouldn't it be pumping those funds into employment schemes, start-ups, training and support services?

I agree Niceguy2 but the fact is we need to cut the welfare state but also crack down on tax avoidance and make it impossible for huge, rich companies and wealthy individuals to avoid paying tax or paying very little. It has been left up to the "squeezed middle" to pay for everything whilst the very rich (many of who have unearned wealth) don't pay anything. Cuts/caps have to be made at both ends of society.

Income from tax = £400billion(ish). Government Outgoings = £600billion(ish).

Income lost to tax avoidance & evasion: £100billion(ish).

Don't know the total cost of low wage subsidies, but I bet it's close to another £50bn.

When you say Government Outgoings, do you mean ALL outgoings? How much would we have saved by not doing the Olympics, cutting back on motorway building and military investments?

I don't disagree that aggressive tax avoidance needs to be addressed and it goes without saying that tax evasion is wrong. Thankfully the latter is low. Most money is 'lost' through tax avoidance rather than outright evasion.

But there is a point here to consider which is that often just because HMRC decide an amount is due, it doesn't mean it is so. There's been lots of other threads on this and there is a big grey area because tax is a very complicated matter.

So it's not as simple as waving a wand and collecting another £100billion(ish) of tax.

Outgoings I mean regular expenditure. Defence, welfare, education etc etc. link In fact, I just looked again and the annual expenditure is about £691 billion (2010-2011)

Total tax income is actually £447 billion. HMRC (2010-2011)

So the deficit is actually £244 billion.

I cannot see how we can seriously tackle this deficit without cutting welfare given it makes up £152 billion of our annual expense.

It would be akin to me being up to my eyeballs in debt and refusing to cut anything from my budget other than cancelling Sky TV. It's not a rational solution and no-one sensible will take your attempt seriously.

The top 10% of UK earners pay 50% of the nations income tax. So even if you doubled what they pay, you raise an extra £76 billion which still doesn't come close. And given our top rate of tax is already 40%-45%, I don't see how you would be able to actually bring it in.

It's not economics or politics which is driving austerity, it's arithmetic.

Looking at individual top-level taxation doesn't cut it, niceguy, though Philip Green could make quite a dent in the deficit all by himself.

The cynicism of British companies who are now Swiss or Dutch - Boots, for example - moving their headquarters to avoid ALL UK tax, while still making their money out of British residents - is breathtaking both in scale and national expense. Likewise the banks who rip billions out of the NHS for development projects, which are run by tax haven-based subsidiaries.

I don't think people realise how much of our money is on a one-way ticket out of the country, while our little incomes cycle through the economy as they're supposed to.

It is not cynicism that causes companies to move to lower tax regimes. those who direct companies have a duty to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders. The fault lies with the UK Goverment, which is responsible for a regime of corporate taxation that menas it makes financial sense for companies to re-domicile.
You appear to be suggesting that only companies domiciled in the UK ought to be allowed to trade with UK customers. That would be unlawful; unless you're planning also to leave the EU. It would also be economic suicide.

Corporation tax is only a small part of our tax income (£40billionish). And arguably the hardest to increase. Because companies can and do organise their tax affairs to minimise tax paid and they are supposed to do this because it is in the best interests of their shareholders.

By increasing corporation tax we make it harder for companies to create jobs. We drive more of them abroad to lower tax regimes like Luxembourg. Short of invading Luxembourg or quitting the EU (which will also make a lot of firms leave), I'm not really sure what the UK govt can do.

I used to buy that job-creation argument, too, niceguy. But, see above. They're not creating the fucking jobs, or paying the workers in existing jobs.

None of the big supermarket chains could survive without wage subsidies, yet they crow about the profits they achieve through cost-efficiency. We - consumers - pay twice for their profitability bonuses.

Further, I do not believe anyone should be exempt from tax on income earned in the UK (or any other country) just because they live elsewhere. When I earned fees from US clients, I had to declare US tax.

to improve the corporation tax take, we need to encourage SMEs as they are less likely to move outside the UK. this is what germany does.

By increasing corporation tax we make it harder for companies to create jobs YES. this years profits determine how much i want to invest in the year ahead.

ideally corp tax should be determined by how many people you employ in the UK and at what wage.

employ 100 people on salaries well above the average should = a lower tax rate than 100 people on NMW (many of whom will need top up benefits).

I obv meant corporations that 'live' elsewhere, as well as humans.

That idea looks useful, Tilly. It should certainly improve the employment situation and lighten the benefits burden. You'd have to take it up to much higher thresholds, though. It would be great to see Tesco, Sainsbury's & co being incentivised more directly to create jobs ... oh, wait, they don't pay corporation tax anyway.

They may not be creating as many jobs as you like Garlic but all these large corporations do employ lots of people.

And are you seriously saying that the answer to the companies not creating enough jobs is to raise their corporation tax?

I do agree though that we have to stop subsidising companies. Subsidies rarely work. Tax credits was designed with the best of intentions but just introduced in a shambolic way.

Tesco pays shop & warehouse staff £7 an hour, I think, excluding the staff it doesn't pay. The 'poverty wage' in the UK is about £10/hr. This means that a large proportion of the 200,000 or so staff it underpays will be getting supplements paid from public funds. Creating more jobs like this will not help our economy - added to which, they aren't creating jobs.

I haven't said getting tax money from corporate giants will create more jobs. I've said it will bring more money into the UK economy.

Looking ONLY at how to reduce expenditure is insane when there are opportunities to increase income. It's like cutting out fresh veg because you can't afford them, while there's a stack of bullion in the cellar.

... That was a very poor similie! More like cutting out the veg while continuing to pay for your rich cousin's vegetable farm.

How many times have I seen people like niceguy2 saying "We have no alternative" Well we do and here is one example:
pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/campaign-resources/austerity-isnt-working-there-is-an-alternative.cfm#Conclusion

Just because you do not like it, is not the point, the point is you have bought hook line and sinker the fairy tale that the condems want to tell you. Well unlike fairy tales this will not end happily, you will get your reductions because people have and will continue to die. As a result of neglect, or by their own hand. The trouble is people would rather think about numbers than humans, austerity rather than dignity, their life than those who have very little life and very little ways to improve their life.

Daily Mail
The Sun
The Times
BBC
The Telegraph
ITV
Have all had stories in the last week about how "Austerity" is leading to death and impoverishment, the return of workhouses, the culling of the sick and disabled. Go do your reading and come back and justify on a case by case basis why no alternative is on offer, oh and yes you must argue case by case to do other wise would be to say loud and clear that some people just deserve to die or be written off.

And before anyone carps crows or mimics any other type of life form I have just filled in my12 page claim form for my ESA for my disability that I was born with, so do keep in mind I am likely to be a statistic quite soon.

Forget the similies

I've just looked up Tesco's UK market share. It fell below 30% for the first time in six years this year, so let's call it 25%.
The grocery market was worth £156.8bn for the calendar year 2011. (53p in the consumer £1, if anyone's interested.)
Tesco owns more than a quarter of this market: over £19,000,000,000.
The group makes about two thirds of its sales and profits in Britain. 2012 revenue from the UK rose 5.8% to £21.2bn.
Its UK trading profits, which exclude property gains and overseas, were £2.5bn.

Do you really think a company will walk away from a quarter share in a £156,800,000,000 market just because of a tax increase?
Do you think it will sacrifice £2,500 million a year profit if it is asked to cut that down to, say, £1,500 million?
What's more, the hit would be significantly less to them overall because my data only depict day-to-day grocery trading in the UK.

You'd have to be some kind of brain-dead wimp to think an international giant, responsible to its shareholders, would sacrifice its biggest revenue stream out of spite.

xposted and have run out of time. can't wait to catch up later

well read enough to justify poverty and death, let's see if it is like my dad's subjective hearing when he is asked to do the washing up, does your reading fail you when it becomes unpalatable as it contradicts your views, looking at niceguy et al.

I will say that is is a report put together by Sheffield Hallam University and it does nothing more than bring together in one place all the different stats produced by the condems about how many and who will be hit by the cuts.
www.shu.ac.uk/_assets/pdf/cresr-final-incapacity-benefit-reform.pdf

ok I lied here is one little nugget, these are your family, friends, neighbours. The cuts will hit whole families not just individuals

"Nearly 600,000 incapacity claimants will be pushed out of the benefits system entirely, either because they will fall foul of the time-limit on non-means tested entitlement or because they fail to qualify for other means-tested benefits."