BBC Thursday: The Future State of Welfare

Jennifer_Jane

On Matthew Wright's 'The Wright Show' this morning, he was saying that he would like a tax benefit for people who don't have children. He is very anti-children and mentions it every morning. Nevertheless, I would prefer the Government to stop tinkering and manipulating things and remove any tax benefit for having (or for not having) children.

The tax system needs to be simplified, so increase the personal allowance (I know it is in the manifesto to increase it eventually to £10,000 and was increased this tax year) to a really substantial amount, and remove odd tax-related benefits.

When my tax allowance went up this tax year to the age-65, I received a new tax code in a letter which said 'We have assumed your income to be above £23500. If this is not the case, please contact us'. (Cannot remember the exact figures, but it was roughly double what I have been getting with my pension). This is surely designed to cause extra work and for older people who can't cope with the bizarre arithmetic of (non)-taxing State Pensions but adding the taxable amount on to your Company pension, or who looked at the letter and thought that the Revenue Office would surely know what they were doing, it could only lead to the current situation when money is owed on both sides.

Government - just stop meddling and simplify things.

John_Pierpoint

The last thing we need is to push up London house prices by subsidising people to live there.
If the super-rich need all these servants, they can pay for or organise accommodation to go with the job.

MacMickster wrote: »

I would guess that a travel pass for the tube or bus would be cheaper for the taxpayer than either the £2000 per month housing benefit, that a family on last night's programme were receiving, or the proposed £1600 per month capped amount.

Anyone have a list of those public servants, who already get free or subsided public transport.
I believe there is a scheme for those going to job interviews plus a limited period after getting the job?

I love posting this link, when people say it costs an arm and a leg to live in the South East:

http://www.findaproperty.com/displayprop.aspx?edid=00&salerent=1&pid=10206154

Alternatively you could buy one:

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/15664265?search_identifier=207cfdc3636651e4e54e97c75bb952ec

Travel cost to the City of London:

http://www.c2c-online.co.uk/travel_information/ticket_options/season_tickets/season_ticket_prices_2011

chewmylegoff

StevieJ wrote: »

The problem with London is the gentrification of previously working class areas, if they don't subsidise they won't have any workers to carry out the lower paid jobs.

this isn't really true though, as the research carried out by london councils to try to prove that the HB changes were 'orrible demonstrated that only 20,000 families would be affected by the changes, and those 20,000 families were concentrated into a small number of boroughs, and could quite easily move a couple of boroughs away and get the bus to work (if they were actually working in the area they were living, and if they are, indeed, actually doing any work).

ukcarper

MacMickster wrote: »

I would guess that a travel pass for the tube or bus would be cheaper for the taxpayer than either the £2000 per month housing benefit, that a family on last night's programme were receiving, or the proposed £1600 per month capped amount.

Would seem to make sense after all how many normal working people can afford to rent in central London.

skater_kat

i was hoping for john to give us an idea of what the universal credit would mean to these people he interviewed. i dont think he mentioned universal credit - just reference to an idea of changes afoot as suggested with the snippets of dave and ed.

Jennifer_Jane

skater_kat wrote: »

i was hoping for john to give us an idea of what the universal credit would mean to these people he interviewed. i dont think he mentioned universal credit - just reference to an idea of changes afoot as suggested with the snippets of dave and ed.

Yes, agree with you. There is so little clarity (in my mind) about what is actually now implemented and in law. The media give out information which is designed for sensationalism and half the time doesn't go through Parliament. And Parliament (which I watch avidly), is so full of debate and counter debate (read 'hot air' for both), and I have no idea of what is happening.

Was interested to hear, though, about the US system and how it is working/non-working.

The only thing he mentioned was the lady disabled through ME, and how she couldn't really grasp that because her disability is ongoing, why should the taxpayer keep paying for her without her having ongoing checks. The new rules mean she must be checked regularly. Seems a good thing to me!

Caveat_Mortgagor

StevieJ wrote: »

The problem with London is the gentrification of previously working class areas, if they don't subsidise they won't have any workers to carry out the lower paid jobs.

So who loses out? The wealthy lose out because no one sweeps their street or empties their bin; they cant buy a starbucks because the shop is unmanned and they cant nip into any local supermarkets or retail establishments. The pub has shut etc etc. Oh, and landlords lose out because they have empty properties.

This just wouldnt be allowed to continue. Rents would fall to attract tenants and the wage for low paid jobs would increase; eventually we find a happy medium that doesnt need a fortune throwing at it from the public purse.

chewmylegoff

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

The only thing he mentioned was the lady disabled through ME, and how she couldn't really grasp that because her disability is ongoing, why should the taxpayer keep paying for her without her having ongoing checks. The new rules mean she must be checked regularly. Seems a good thing to me!

i'm probably being unreasonable, but she didn't seem too chronically fatigued in that interview, she seemed quite up to having a massive rant about how unfair it was that she needed to prove she wasn't capable of working every six months. no doubt the real interview was at least an hour long and they just pulled out some soundbites for the programme.

to me, she seemed to do quite a good job of demonstrating that she was able to do at least some work of some sort. i'm not suggesting she is made to break up rocks with a sledgehammer, but there must be something part time she could do from the comfort of her own home to at least contribute towards her own upkeep, if not pay for everything.

ILW

Caveat_Mortgagor wrote: »

So who loses out? The wealthy lose out because no one sweeps their street or empties their bin; they cant buy a starbucks because the shop is unmanned and they cant nip into any local supermarkets or retail establishments. The pub has shut etc etc. Oh, and landlords lose out because they have empty properties.

This just wouldnt be allowed to continue. Rents would fall to attract tenants and the wage for low paid jobs would increase; eventually we find a happy medium that doesnt need a fortune throwing at it from the public purse.

That is so true. If nobody would work in a London Starbucks for less than £30k that is what they would pay. Very simple really.

Road_Hog

ILW wrote: »

That is so true. If nobody would work in a London Starbucks for less than £30k that is what they would pay. Very simple really.

I do hope that's tongue in cheek.