Taxpayer funds familys £1,600 per week rent - The Times

zygurat789

moggylover wrote: »

I would agree to some extent zygurat. However, we need to ask ourselves whether that "low wage" is a liveable amount that grants that working person a "life"!

If it does not, then the public in general need to face the fact that once again they want things: but they do not want to pay for them!

NO-ONE imo, should be asked to be productive if they simply cannot afford to live reasonably well in the Country they are working in.

There are many on here that consider that benefit levels are too high because one CAN end up better off than in work! For myself, I believe that in the majority of cases that simply means that the wage levels are incorrectly low in view of the cost of living and that either the consumer will just have to suck up higher costs, or the tax payer will have to pick up the slack with higher taxes, OR (my favourite) we plug the loopholes in the tax system that allows a millionaire to be paying less tax per annum than the guy on £40/£50K.

We do also, however, need to shut down the loopholes that allow people to keep breeding like rabbits and claiming for the resultant progeny I agree.

It should be high enough for them to live and low enough to encourage them to seek more
They are not being productive they are working in the community
So everyones wages are too low and benefit is right?
Unfortunately the mnaths doesn't work. There are far too few millionaires or even just plain rich people. This is the oldest and most derided far left idea and I had to check that it was your post, I expected better from you.
It isn't a loophole we need to shut we just need to stop encouraging them and egging them on and actively discourage them

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

moggylover wrote: »

Positive reinforcment just SO seldom exists at the bottom of the heap. Those families that try hard to raise their kids right are up against such huge social deprivation problems that it is like climbing Everest in bare feet!

There is MANY a rich pooch out there whose life (despite its lack of personal choice) is far kinder and more treasured than the human lives at the bottom of the pile. Furthermore, we ARE more likely to accept and respect the differences in different breeds of dogs than we are in human beings instead expecting absolutely everyone to live by our own tennents or condemning them as "scum".

Brilliant post :T:T:T

bo_drinker

Considering the size of the island we live on our lot cannot throw money at outsiders fast enough, wipe their a55es big time. And the 3rd generation wasters get a good wack as well. When it comes to average working Joe in the street he is clobbered with tax 24/7. This is so wrong.

treliac

lostinrates wrote: »

I get what you are saying, but I think one needs to look at it differently: you are ''disenfranchised'' (as I believe the word is here being used, which is slightly different from my understanding but I'll run with it for ease) if you have those things but are out, with no aims, to get into the ''other system''.

Disenfranchised means 'deprived of the rights of citizenship.'

With rights should come responsibilities. I'd argue that we haven't achieved the right balance in this country.

Snooze

SingleSue wrote: »

Ooooh you are seriously piddling me off now....I may live in HA housing but I am not scum!

No, you are not, but you can't deny that the vast majority of people in council housing are. All you have to do is take a ride to any council estate to see this.

People like you that with your unfortunate circumstances should not have to live alongside them imho.

R

lostinrates

treliac wrote: »

Disenfranchised means 'deprived of the rights of citizenship.'

Yes, and while I think this sector of society can be cut off, they DO have rights ...they can vote, they have access to education, to betterment, to choice in career, freedom to travel. Lack of interaction, self esteem etc are two way problems IMO, we can help not knock people down, we can't MAKE them believe in themselves. Leading a horse to water.

Similarly, the group of people that I'm refering to (slightly tongue in cheek) as ''the rich'' could also be getting more back, by giving more. I hole its better to enbcourage this in a way that makes them want to be involved to launch schemes that help people without disadvatage, that keep us moving forward in different directions, with different visions, meaning that whatever happens in the world we have a view that is prepared, is ready to take us into different circumstances, to support opinions and investment other than mainstream.....that why I can't, despite not being a big old meany, the lack of choice of investment that goes hand in hand with left of centre politics.

The word is ...not quite right, it implies to me..., restriction from voting and politcal exercise and want to excercise these activities but a ...restriction from them. A developement for me from this is restriction from holding thought and practise outside the authourities norm (Ironically my fear from a swing left), from progression by something other than self....which isn't wholly accurate. (although perhaps increasingly so, part of my hatred of increased legislation, which I think is leading us.. to become less...dynamic and inventive). There is another word I want here, but \i can't find it!

With rights should come responsibilities. I'd argue that we haven't achieved the right balance in this country.

That I would agree with (whether its taking benefits yet not gving back to society or avoiding tax while skimming the cream)

ETA: ouch...there goes my head again...I'm out of practise of norml debate....quick, house prices...up or down?

fc123

I hope Max/Charlie won't mind me C + Ping some of his blog here. 2nd entry down about a family buying a new car.
I had no idea that JSA was taxed as well.
Max had no mortage so just qualified for basic JSA.

I had good reason to reflect on this a day or two after the S-Max family. Twenty five years of giving had entitled me to the princely sum of £64/week and a bit of help with the council tax when I lost my job. Not enough to finance a pair of roller skates. Or live on. Pretty clear which category I fall into.

Indeed, over my nearly six month period of unemployment I was able to claim the princely sum of precisely £1,240-08. A rather exact figure, but there’s a good reason why I know this. And it’s because a day or two after the S-Max family were in choosing their new wheels I received a letter from the Department of Work and Pensions.

It seems that now I’m back to my rightful place on the treadmill they’d like some of it back please. And to that end they’ve informed me that the entire amount is now liable for income tax and will be added to my earnings for the purposes of claiming it back from me.
A rough calculation suggests that £385 will be clawed back. Over a quarter of it! Absolutely staggering!!!

And bear this in mind, I’m earning much less than I was. Had I secured a job at my previous pay-scale I could have been taxed on some or all of it at 40%!

OH has a close family member who has lived off benefits for years and even got found guilty in court over a fraud, but only has to pay it back at a token sum...from her new benefits which are now tax credits....the sum her ex pays to CSA is counted as earnings and she gets TC on top plus a load of add ons.

TBH, it has done her no favours at all.

In 10 years time, she will really struggle but it maybe too late then to go out and train and get a well paid job....as 30 years+ with no work record makes job hunting a bit hard.

PasturesNew

fc123 wrote: »

I had no idea that JSA was taxed as well.
Max had no mortage so just qualified for basic JSA.

It is counted as taxable income, but I don't see how he can be paying tax on it as he was getting the £64/week JSA for a single person... and you start paying tax at about £120/week.

So something's not quite right there.

fc123 wrote: »

30 years+ with no work record makes job hunting a bit hard.

30 years of working doesn't make it much easier if you've not been continuously employed in one type of job, preferably with qualifications in that thing.

fc123

Snooze wrote: »

No, you are not, but you can't deny that the vast majority of people in council housing are. All you have to do is take a ride to any council estate to see this.

People like you that with your unfortunate circumstances should not have to live alongside them imho.

R

To be fair snooze/Rob, we started out on a terrible estate but most people were PLU's (people like us) and there weren't many PLT's (people like them) just the PLT's made a lot more noise and trouble.

To say all people on rough estates are bad is not fair or true...it's only a minority.

We lived on a bad estate as it was all that was on offer at the time and we were skint. When we upped our earnings, we gave it back.

We aren't skint now (maybe a little indebted) but our family values haven't changed since we lived there.

treliac

fc123 wrote: »

In 10 years time, she will really struggle but it maybe too late then to go out and train and get a well paid job....as 30 years+ with no work record makes job hunting a bit hard.

It's one thing insisting that someone is ready and willing to take work. Another to find an employer willing to offer a job.

Those who have been out of work for endless years, maybe have never worked, are not likely to be employees of choice. This factor alone could reinforce their position as benefits claimants and undermine any govt attempts to change the status quo.