The “What does the government spend our money on?” quiz results/discussion

Hobbin_Rood

subsoniccoyote wrote: »

Here is the answer for those interested http://www.westbury.co.uk/content/taxcentre_taxcard/taxyield.html

and what gives those particular stats their authority? i was looking at these:

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/

parkersages

BobbinAlong wrote: »

As an underpaid mod civil servant I wish they did spend that much on defence - maybe we'd get a bit! If I could find a local job in my IT specialisation I'd jump ship - the lowest going rate in industry is 50% more than I earn!

You may consider that you are underpaid, but would you really jump ship and lose that costly indexed linked pension that is costing the rest of us dearly. One day a government is going to have the courage to tackle the problem. I know someone who retired in the 70s and within less than 3 years was receiving a pension higher than her salary had ever been. God help my tax bill

psychodave

Yeah, i voted benefits, I've known this for a year or so now. It's not really that surprising once you think about it.

About the benefits system, I've always been confused why the government taxes the poor, especially those on minimum wage. There's something questionable about the efficiency of taking people's money, and then maybe giving it back to them through some labyrinthian system of paperwork. Hell, even government budgets take into account that only a certain percentage of people will claim the benefits they're entitled to.

Why don't they just stop taxing them and lower the minimum wage barrier accordingly? They'll receive the same net pay, and it'll cost less to employ them, so recruitment will go up (or redundancies/closures down, depending on the company).

Unity

Hobbin_Rood wrote: »

For the welfare budget my understanding is the biggest chunk is for pensions (and quite rightly so). Then it's the working/family tax credits - which is disgraceful. This effectively means companies who don't pay people enough are allowed to do so while the government has to top their income up to give employees a living wage. And then on to disabled benefits etc etc with unemployment benefits at the bottom of the spending table.

I don't understand why some people are so furious - we should be using some of the wealth of this country to help the worst off, be they pensioners or disabled people or the unemployed.

Frankly there's not enough done to help them. Anyway, more important is less money on corporate welfare and more cracking down on corporate tax avoidance and fraud. Let's highlight the people at the top a bit more, they shouldn't be allowed to get away with their greater levels of greed.

For example some people think that avoidance of tax by corporations could be costing the treasury up to £150 billion pounds a year. And think of the way multi-national corporations use the resources of this country. Who's the real spongers?

Good article in the independent:
"To put this another way, the Government admits that tax avoidance last year was somewhere between £97bn and £150bn, whereas benefit fraud amounted to less than one billion pounds".

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-who-wants-to-be-a-billionaire-444160.html

Thank the Gods for a voice of reason! :beer:

The trouble is that the disabled, sick and pensioners have always been an easy target - much easier than conglomerates avoiding and evading tax! :mad:

Unity

teddyco wrote: »

£169,000,000,000 is being spent on social services?

No wonder so many immigrants are risking their lives to come to 'Treasure Island'.

I'd be interested to know just how much of this figure is being paid to foreign nationals and isn't it time we had a reciprocal agreement on benefits? If you are not a British citizen you should not be entitled to benefits or the right to vote - like those who arrive from the Irish Republic. Would you expect to move over there and vote? I wouldn't. We should apply the same rules to foreign nationals as they would apply to us in their countries.

We Brits aren't allowed to go off to Australia and live on benefits - so why should we allow them to come over here, get off the plane and sign on for JSA? It's ridiculous!

Let's face it we know why everyone flocks here and it isn't for the weather .

beer_tins

Unity wrote: »

I'd be interested to know just how much of this figure is being paid to foreign nationals and isn't it time we had a reciprocal agreement on benefits? If you are not a British citizen you should not be entitled to benefits or the right to vote - like those who arrive from the Irish Republic. Would you expect to move over there and vote? I wouldn't. We should apply the same rules to foreign nationals as they would apply to us in their countries.

We Brits aren't allowed to go off to Australia and live on benefits - so why should we allow them to come over here, get off the plane and sign on for JSA? It's ridiculous!

Let's face it we know why everyone flocks here and it isn't for the weather .

You are allowed to vote if you move to the Irish republic, the two countries have a reciprocal agreement i.e. British people have the same rights over there that Irish people do here.

As for Australians coming over here getting off the plane and signing on for JSA, they don't. Because they're not entitled to. No foreign national is allowed to do that without having paid in for x years (I'm not sure off the top of my head).

There is a lot of misinformation about foreigners getting it all on a plate spread by the likes of the Daily Hail. The reality is very different.

Unity

beinerts wrote: »

You are allowed to vote if you move to the Irish republic, the two countries have a reciprocal agreement i.e. British people have the same rights over there that Irish people do here.

As for Australians coming over here getting off the plane and signing on for JSA, they don't. Because they're not entitled to. No foreign national is allowed to do that without having paid in for x years (I'm not sure off the top of my head).

There is a lot of misinformation about foreigners getting it all on a plate spread by the likes of the Daily Hail. The reality is very different.

Thanks for correcting me on the Irish Republic situation, though I still wonder why anyone from either nationality would want to vote in the other's country. However the Australian situation is one my nephew experienced. He wanted to work in Australia and needed to prove he could support himself whilst there with £1,000 up front. He returned and subsequently one of the Australian friends he met over there came over to Britain. She did not need any proof of support and was able to sign on for non-income based JSA and HB.

As for 'foreigners getting it all on a plate', correct me if I am wrong, but do we not have an obligation to house these people? Furthermore do they not go to the top of the council housing list, above our own young people who cannot afford to buy and are forced to live with relatives in overcrowded conditions? Surely the obligation to house the homeless should start with our own - or have we solved that problem?

beer_tins

Unity wrote: »

Thanks for correcting me on the Irish Republic situation, though I still wonder why anyone from either nationality would want to vote in the other's country. However the Australian situation is one my nephew experienced. He wanted to work in Australia and needed to prove he could support himself whilst there with £1,000 up front. He returned and subsequently one of the Australian friends he met over there came over to Britain. She did not need any proof of support and was able to sign on for non-income based JSA and HB.

RE: the Irish situation, it's due to the political situation. One of the 4 provinces (Ulster) is under British rule, but anyone in Ireland (including Ulster) has the right to an Irish passport. Some in Ulster choose to take Irish nationality for political reasons, but this leaves them without a voice in elections. For that reason, Britain allowed them to vote. Ireland agreed to reciprocate to make it fair. It wasn't really done with Great Britain (i.e. excluding Northern Ireland) in mind.

RE the Aussie, did she have British nationality (through a parent or grandparent)? As far as I know, no foreign national is entitled to any benefits if they have been here under a certain amount of time.

P.S. Asylum seekers get a living allowance, but it is not a "benefit". It is also far less than any pensioner or person on JSA gets. They are not entitled to work or claim any additional benefits.

Unity

beinerts wrote: »

P.S. Asylum seekers get a living allowance, but it is not a "benefit". It is also far less than any pensioner or person on JSA gets. They are not entitled to work or claim any additional benefits.

Firstly - I am not criticising political refugees who flee their countries from persecution - but economic refugees - and everyone would agree this system is open to abuse, unless they were particularly naive.

But - not a benefit? So it's a disadvantage then? Illegally enter the country and we will penalise you by forcing you to take free money :rotfl:.

If something is long, orange and tastes of carrot - then it probably is a carrot. It's still free money for doing nothing in return. To say it is not a benefit is terminologically splitting hairs.

Any idea how much this living allowance is? I'd be interested in whether it is more or less than Carer's Allowance currently pennies over £50 per week. If a carer was lucky enough to be only doing 50 hours that would be the princely sum of £1 per hour - beyond the dreams of avarice eh?:rolleyes:

Whatever the money is being spent on, it certainly isn't our carers!

beer_tins

I don't know any up to date figures, but asylum seekers get around £40 a week, less than half of what a pensioner gets. This puts them well below the poverty line.

They also live in squalid conditions, often in housing that council tenants have turned down (council tenants have a right to refuse, asylum seekers do not).

They get less financial support here than in most other European countries. The idea that Britain is a 'soft touch' on asylum seekers is a myth.

Sorry to bang on, but I don't believe anyone who has visited the home of an asylum seeker (as I have) would still claim that they have it easy in any way.

BTW no asylum seeker is 'illegal' by definition. Illegal immigrants that enter without going through the proper channels are another thing.