Is £40,000 really a liveable income for families in the UK?

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Is it not obvious?

Read what michaels says himself. Again, not having a pop, hes just being brutally honest.

My issue, is intentionally avoiding work and looking for ways within rules to do so, to carry on taking from the taxpayer. The system somewhat encourages this. It should be stamped out.

I can't make it any clearer.

If you were moaning about those people, for example contractors, who have a high income but can use the framework of a limited company to hide income and make themselves look poorer in order to receive benefits, then I agree with you.

However, you stated that your issue is with people avoiding work to increase their benefits. My question therefore still stands. How much work do you feel is acceptable and how much work isn't ?

michaels

I don't quite get it - whether you call it tax or 'tax credits' it is the same thing, what proportion of your income do you receive. If I was on 160k for 4 days a week and choosing not to work 5 days a week because I would lose 50% of any extra income that would be fine but on 25k and choosing not to earn 30k because I would lose 72% is not acceptable?

In example 1 it costs the taxpayer about 20k, in example 2 it costs them 4k.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What I feel is, regardless of the tax rates, which you have obviously worked out based on what you can get from the state as there is no such tax rate, your basing it on the benefits you would lose....

....NO ONE should be allowed to make their own decision as to whether they work or not, and then hold out their cap to others.

It's as simple as that to me.

I don't want to cause an issue between us, but I simply cannot agree with you on this. You are asking me, and all of the rest of us, to continue working, to in effect, pay you to have a choice whether you work or not.

Let's put it another way. Without that benefits system and your personal statement that you feel it's a choice whether you work and stop claiming or not...would you be working more now? Are you able to? Would you still sit back if they cut benefits for you?

I think we know the answer.

Again, I don't want to create bad feeling, but what you are doing is absolutely everything I am adamantly against. Especially making use of other avenues to reduce your savings so you continue to get better benefits income. I hope you se eme as being butally honest in response to your brutal honesty, and don't see it as just an attack....you said you don't see whats wrong with what you are doing. But theres people out there working two, three jobs, who have to contribute to you because you feel you have a right to sit back.

The benefits system is there to protect the needy. The ill. Those who have lost their jobs. Those who CAN'T work. It was there to protect you when your employer cut your hours. Thats precisely what it was for.

It's not there for you to sit back, burrow money into your future to take more from the system and turn down extra work because you have done everything with the "rules".

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

If you were moaning about those people, for example contractors, who have a high income but can use the framework of a limited company to hide income and make themselves look poorer in order to receive benefits, then I agree with you.

However, you stated that your issue is with people avoiding work to increase their benefits. My question therefore still stands. How much work do you feel is acceptable and how much work isn't ?

I fail to see what avenue you are trying to funnel me down here.

Everyones circumstances are different. We all have different lifestyles, different funding requirements etc.

I don't care how long someone works, whether it be 1 hour a week or 70 if they can fund their chosen lifestyle on that money.

I do care when someone chooses not to regain their employment when offered, JUST so that they can take more from the benefits system.

Is it clear yet? The hours / days / weeks are not important. Michaels has a funding requirement, his requirements will be met by regaining full time, which is available, but he chooses not to and chooses to carry on taking from the taxpayer to fund his personal choice. Thats my issue.

If you disagree with me, say so, but what is with all these bizzare questions trying to funnel me down a particular route?

michaels

What I was trying to say is that I had not chosen to reduce my savings to increase my benefits entitlement even though I could have done - sorry if this did not come across clearly.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Especially making use of other avenues to reduce your savings so you continue to get better benefits income.

JonnyBravo

RenovationMan wrote: »

If you were moaning about those people, for example contractors, who have a high income but can use the framework of a limited company to hide income and make themselves look poorer in order to receive benefits, then I agree with you.

You mean like you did?

grizzly1911

GO certainly couldn't manage on it what with all his ski trips ...

It may have been a cheap remark by Mr Milliband but only endorses just how out of touch most people in politics are.

They take a big black marker pen, draw aline and have no concept about the fallout caused by their macro decisions.

Compounded of course by numerous departments having their own black pen.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

I don't quite get it - whether you call it tax or 'tax credits' it is the same thing, what proportion of your income do you receive. If I was on 160k for 4 days a week and choosing not to work 5 days a week because I would lose 50% of any extra income that would be fine but on 25k and choosing not to earn 30k because I would lose 72% is not acceptable?

In example 1 it costs the taxpayer about 20k, in example 2 it costs them 4k.

Its completely up to you what you choose to earn.

But don't expect us to drip feed you to continue your chosen lifestyle when you choose to earn less.

wotsthat

I know a company that employs a lot of Eastern European labour. It's completely true when I say that the employees use spreadsheets to calculate the net benefit to themselves of working an extra hour. Most actually make the decision to work the extra hours as they decide that despite a marginal tax rate of 70 odd % it's still 30% in their pockets. Most of them hate getting paid for bank holidays (even though they get the day off) because they've lost an opportunity to work overtime. Some though make the decision that the 30% isn't worth it.

The different decisions they make are completely rational as that is how the system works.

The question is whether the system should be changed. I'd suggest that it should as it provides a disincentive to work extra hours. It's also bad for the economy; if an employer wants someone to work overtime and no-one will or can't then presumably there's been an opportunity loss.

The moral argument just creates trees so the wood can't be seen

Graham_Devon

It's the marginal tax rate too thats the completely wrong way to think about things.

If I earn £1000 a month, but if I chose to "accidentally" lose my job and not find another, and could get £900 a month from the state all in...is my tax rate therefore 90%?

Of course it's not. But it's how some people prefer to view it. It's completely the wrong way around.

You are not paying any more tax than the next person on the same wage. You are simply losing the benefits generously given to you by the state intended to be there for times of need. Not for lifestyle choices.

I completely understand and am very sympathetic to people when they face the situation of actually being at a loss each month due to working vs staying on benefits....single mothers for instance who would lose their rent and then have to pay for childcare to work. But for people just sitting back enjoying their extra free time I have absolutely no sympathy.

The greed will eventually bring the entire benefits system to its knees. It's ok for those who are picking and choosing, they will simply choose then to work.

But those who will suffer from all this greed is those who DON'T have the choice of working and see money taken away from them due to the greed of others merrily suiggesting "well I'm doing nothing wrong, rules said X Y and Z, and i worked within them".

It's wrong. Completely wrong and fuelled by greed. The system needs to be changed. But so do peoples mindsets, especially on this marginal tax rate nonsense.

Wheezy_2

grizzly1911 wrote: »

GO certainly couldn't manage on it what with all his ski trips ...

It may have been a cheap remark by Mr Milliband but only endorses just how out of touch most people in politics are.

It was a cheap remark and Miliband even managed to screw that one up.

Dinner ladies, squeaked Mr Miliband, “earn in a week what the Chancellor pays for his annual skiing holiday”. The Chancellor’s most recent skiing holiday reportedly cost £11,000. Either Mr Miliband meant “earn in a year”, or we should all be in the school dinners game.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8927034/Strikes-sketch-Cameron-Jr-stays-home-and-misses-Fathers-Peppa-Pig-impression.html