Poverty-hit families to get food

lostinrates

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

No they don't include income tax - they are net earnings.

The figures are what people think the minimum income should be.

Here is a more upto date report. With the relevant figures for 2008 + the benefit levels for 2008

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/minimum-income-standard-britain-what-people-think

Thank you very much.

kennyboy66_2

Woolton happens to be one of the most expensive parts of Liverpool to live & the place where I did plenty of drinking and courting in my younger days.

http://www.mouseprice.com/property-for-sale/ref-536175/56691822/Acrefield-Road-Liverpool-Merseyside-L25-5-bed-Detached-L25

3 minutes walk from the centre of Woolton village.

A snip at 1.1 million.

Pobby

Part of the problem, as I see it, is decades of governments " tinkering " with the system.The benefits/ tax issues become more and more complex as bits are added, bits removed, stuff that is costly to administrate yet not effective. CSA springs to mind. In the end we have a lumbering, badly run and extremely expensive machines with more cracks between the floor boards than you shake a stick at.

My first task would to deal with income tax. The tax free allowance needs to be raised to a point far higher than it is now. Ideally, this would be at 15k per annum taking a huge amount of people out of the tax burden. I have no figures but my guess is that a good half of the people this relates to are receiving some form of credit so I don`t think this suggestion is so loony.

kennyboy66_2

Pobby wrote: »

My first task would to deal with income tax. The tax free allowance needs to be raised to a point far higher than it is now. Ideally, this would be at 15k per annum taking a huge amount of people out of the tax burden. I have no figures but my guess is that a good half of the people this relates to are receiving some form of credit so I don`t think this suggestion is so loony.

The principle is not loony - however it would be hugely expensive to do, and while reduced benefits would cover some of the cost there would still be a huge gap.

krisskross

kennyboy66 wrote: »

The principle is not loony - however it would be hugely expensive to do, and while reduced benefits would cover some of the cost there would still be a huge gap.

Raising the income tax thresholds to take loads of people out is surely fairly cheap to implement? Got to be miles cheaper than the dreaded tax credit system. I have always thought it totally stupid to take money off people then give it back, but involving a huge burocratic (sp.) monster

kennyboy66_2

krisskross wrote: »

Raising the income tax thresholds to take loads of people out is surely fairly cheap to implement? Got to be miles cheaper than the dreaded tax credit system. I have always thought it totally stupid to take money off people then give it back, but involving a huge burocratic (sp.) monster

A rough guess would be that it costs £22bn to raise the threshhold to £10k.

It would probably cost another £25bn to raise it to £15k.

So thats £47 billion to find.

This does no include national insurance which is paid once you earn approx £94 per week.

The idea is right in principle, but will generate many winners and losers.

Politicians avoide policies where a potential headline is:

"Nurse earning £22k with 2 children to be £50 per week worse off"

Generali

kennyboy66 wrote: »

A rough guess would be that it costs £22bn to raise the threshhold to £10k.

It would probably cost another £25bn to raise it to £15k.

Wouldn't the second increase cost less than the first as so many people earn less than £15,000?

For example according to this:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

the bottom 10% of workers earn up to about £13,000pa so there you have 2,000,000 workers, none of whom would benefit in full from the measure.

Or is there something I'm missing?

It would certainly be interesting to see an analysis of costs vs savings for such a measure and what it would do to peoples' incomes. Presumably the hardest hit group would be stay-at-home mums, regardless of their relationship status, as presumably they get all their income from benefits by deifinition.

lemonjelly

lostinrates wrote: »

lemonjelly, do you know whther Pns figures include tax or not (I'd really like to know)

I believe that they are after tax figures, but am willing to be corrected on this LiR.

whoops, see Baileysbattle bus answered - apologies!

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

Wouldn't the second increase cost less than the first as so many people earn less than £15,000?

.

It really was a bit of a guess, I have seen the £22bn quoted (possibly Vince Cable) to take it to £10k.

This years allowance is £6475, so roughly for each £1k increase it costs about £6bn.

I then thought that there would be some earners dropping out so guesstimate at £25bn rather than 5 x £6bn.

sammyjammy

kennyboy66 wrote: »

A rough guess would be that it costs £22bn to raise the threshhold to £10k.

It would probably cost another £25bn to raise it to £15k.

So thats £47 billion to find.

This does no include national insurance which is paid once you earn approx £94 per week.

The idea is right in principle, but will generate many winners and losers.

Politicians avoide policies where a potential headline is:

"Nurse earning £22k with 2 children to be £50 per week worse off"

Would be interesting to know the annual cost of running the tax credits system.

Its that old problem of we give to everyone (winter fuel for over 60s) or means test it which costs much more.