The recession, benefits, the safety net, and the learning curve

Mr_Mumble

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

3) Don't help cooperators, don't help defectors.
...
(3) is what is advocated by right-wing flat-tax nut jobs.

We right-wing nut-jobs who believe in flat taxes do so because we think it helps society and the people within it more than any other tax system. It helps get rid of centrally planned inefficiencies where politicians and bureaucrats decide which special interest groups get favoured tax treatment.

Most advocates of a flat-rate income tax also agree that a larger personal allowance/ zero rate band should be applied. If you had a personal allowance of £12,000 and then charged tax at 25-30p in the £ from then on you'd help an awful lot of the working poor. Middle and higher income earners would get charged a more proportional, progressive, sum of money. You'd also save a lot of complexity and money by not having the working poor reliant on state handouts (tax credits) when they're taxed on their income at the same time!

cocktail

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

We right-wing nut-jobs who believe in flat taxes do so because we think it helps society and the people within it more than any other tax system. It helps get rid of centrally planned inefficiencies where politicians and bureaucrats decide which special interest groups get favoured tax treatment.

Most advocates of a flat-rate income tax also agree that a larger personal allowance/ zero rate band should be applied. If you had a personal allowance of £12,000 and then charged tax at 25-30p in the £ from then on you'd help an awful lot of the working poor. Middle and higher income earners would get charged a more proportional, progressive, sum of money. You'd also save a lot of complexity and money by not having the working poor reliant on state handouts (tax credits) when they're taxed on their income at the same time!

ah! but you then shut down so many government offices and people out of job. how can you ever percieve such a thing as simplicity.

ceridwen

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I'm sure we've all shared with "lodgers from hell" but, as they have no security of tenure, it's easy to get rid and move on to someone more congenial.

The "supply" of lodgers isnt THAT plentiful where I live to find that a readily available option - more a Department of Last Resort - as one couldnt stand that persons misdemeanours any more. Non-payment of rent/breaking things/invading your privacy/disturbing your sleep/feeling "personally" threatening/theft/importing "livestock" of the too small to spot readily variety IYKWIM/never ever ever doing their share of the housework....need I go on?

ceridwen

pipkin71 wrote: »

I do find that very hard to believe ceridwen.

When I took in lodgers - phoneline rental was included in the rent. These days - broadband access would be as well. Par for the course if renting a room in someones house......

ceridwen

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

What about giving him six months JSA at a rate linked to NI contributions (£50 pw + £5 pw for each year of the last twenty he has worked, for example) to tide him over?

Forcing someone to sell their house in order to survive between jobs is a bit harsh.

The famous "British understatement" methinks....."a bit harsh" to be forced to sell ones house because of a (hopefully temporary) spell of unemployment. Can I phrase that in more "international" language? How about "b****y outrageous" - I think that sums up it more accurately...

I was thinking today about the point that someone made here that many people are tied into contracts of some description or other (mobile phone or whatever) at the time unemployment hits and its not possible to just drop those contracts like a hotcake. A very good point actually.

Its also not possible in various other ways to adapt ones finances overnight to an "emergency basis". I was thinking that in my case, for instance, it would take literally months to get hold of all the stuff I needed to start growing my own food (containers/greenhouse/compost etc) and then the time on top of that for the food to actually grow to harvestable level. Suppose I had one or more pets that I would know very well I couldnt possibly afford whilst on benefit - at what point would I have to give up all hope of being able to keep my pets and then how long would it take to "rehome" them in a loving home (just at a time when I needed their "company" most).

Well - I can only speak personally - but I have now spent the last year or so preparing for jobloss at some point in the future - its honestly taken me all that time: to get the food growing in my garden/to fine tune the bills/to get stocked up with stuff/etc/etc - so I would quite definitely have needed an "intro" period (like we used to have!!!) to adapt my finances
- though, having said that, the "dole" is SO incredibly low now after all the cuts during the last few years that I wouldnt be able to manage on it anyway - all my adaptations would just mean that I would suffer marginally less than if I'd carried on regardless as before...

Shakethedisease

Oh the joys of plucking money out of thin air.

Ah yes, and just one of the many reason's I'm no longer on benefits and haven't been for a long time.

Sometimes being a really skint stay at home mum with 4 kids and too much time on her hands can be a good thing ! ( Hard to believe I know ).

SingleSue

Max_Headroom wrote: »

Oh god, I'm really beginning to wish I hadn't mentioned the trainers now!! :rotfl:

They're just an example!!

The point is, whether she saved for them, whether she got some special DHS Designer Grant, whatever, the fact remains that she is able to fund more than an existence, whereas I cannot even afford an existence.

Lol......I know.

But as I showed, a little bit of doing without in other areas and a lot of careful planning...it can be done.

I have gone without food for myself umpteem times to pay for a school trip and the idea of getting new school uniform gives me the heeby jeebies! :rotfl:

It's still an existence, just a slightly different one where everything has to be finely balanced and life is occupied by thinking in pennies and not pounds.

JanCee

SingleSue - If I ever win the lottery you are going to be high on my list of "good causes"

Max_Headroom_3

SingleSue wrote: »

But as I showed, a little bit of doing without in other areas and a lot of careful planning...it can be done.

.

But Sue, that's the point. I couldn't! As I've repeatedly said, on what I'm due I can't afford to eat, so do you really think I'm going to be carefully saving £2-50 a week to buy someone some £140 trainers, or do you think I'm more likely to buy a loaf of bread and some cheap jam?

space_rider

I found myself unable to work after having a baby who was born with a congenital heart defect amongst other things. When I realised I wasn`t going back to work after maternity leave I claimed income support. Can`t remember how much I used to get but I can remember thinking how on earth am I going to feed us all and pay the mortgage etc. 6 months in I got my mortgage interest paid which eased things. Now I would have been quids in if I didn`t have a mortgage to pay and was instead renting as it would have all been paid for. I did go back to work after a career break of 2 years and I was £200 a month worse off. I had 4 children to support whilst on income support and there certainly was not enough money for trainers for 4 of them for £140 never mind £140 for 1.