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

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Giving up any work, purposely, with the intent to claim benefits, is morally wrong.

I really don't get why this is difficult to understand, or how comparisons with child benefit can be drawn.

I really don't understand why you keep trying to make this a moral issue especially when another poster has put themselves forwards providing personal details knowing they are going to receive some stick.

What's wrong with just saying that the system is flawed because it provides a disincentive to work longer and earn more money. Not only does it do that but it places an additional burden on the taxpayer.

There seems to be a consensus that the system is flawed. Who appointed you the moral guardian?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I really don't understand why you keep trying to make this a moral issue especially when another poster has put themselves forwards providing personal details knowing they are going to receive some stick.

What's wrong with just saying that the system is flawed because it provides a disincentive to work longer and earn more money. Not only does it do that but it places an additional burden on the taxpayer.

There seems to be a consensus that the system is flawed. Who appointed you the moral guardian?

The system is flawed.

But that doesn't mean someone is releieved of all personal responsibility if they decide to maximise the system within the rules.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, lets put it another way.

As the tax pot is so large, people look at it from a different perspective.

Imagine living on an estate with 30 houses. Each house works. You then decide you don't really care for that, you want to spend time at home. So you go round on certain day of the month, to each of the 29 houses and ask them for £100 each, out of their wages, to keep you sat at home enjoying your time with your wife and kids.

That's basically what's happening, but on a much larger, none personal level.

How many would give you that £100 out of their hard earned cash?

If the boot was on the other foot, would YOU be happy to hand over cash to that person on your estate who's decided thats the way it's going to be...while you have to spend time away from your wife and kids working for your cash?

I KNOW this is on a personal level, I KNOW it's not £100 each. It's an example, but it's basically what is happening. Money is being claimed from other people working because you wish to spend time at home with your family.

If you have the opportunity to work, and yo uare able to work, and you are actively turning that down, in order to continue sitting there taking off the taxpayer, it is wrong. Simple as for me. I cannot make it any clearer.

Regardless of the personal "have a go at that poster" contest now going on, I bet deep down we are all in complete agreement with that very simple, factual comment.

I did not wish for bad feeling between us, I respect you as an individual, I do not respect your choice to take off the taxpayer. I do not wish for hard feelings between us, but accept it may be too late. The system may allow you to do what you are doing, but I cannot merely say "oh thats ok then" carry on. We all play a part.

OK let's put it another way.

Imagine a bloke (1) who has a family, he works for the national health service in a contract that's pretty secure and pretty easy and allows him to spend a lot of time on the internet posting on the MSE forum. He could get a higher paid job and he could get evening and weekend work but he decides that his anuual salary coupled with his state handout (AKA tax credits) are enough to keep him and his family.

Imagine someone else (bloke 2) who has a more stressful job that takes him overseas for a large amount of time and who works long hours in the evenings and some weekends. He gets paid a higher amount and doesn't qualify for tax credits.

Why is it fair that bloke 2 has to subsidise bloke 1's income?

lostinrates

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The system is flawed.

But that doesn't mean someone is releieved of all personal responsibility if they decide to maximise the system within the rules.

actually, I really do agree with Graham here. Its no different to what people requently give stick to various other groupd for...bankers for getting bonuses, people who offshore, people etc etc.still, when morality coes into it outside law I think we'd all arrive at different answers of wht is acceptable or not and thats why its only what is legal or what should be legal that really matters.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

But I'm still not sure where you draw the line - what about someone working 5 days/35 hours and receiving tax credits - should they take overtime/get a part time job in order to reduce their tax credits or is that unreasonable to expect?

I think it's unreasonable to expect someone already in full time employment, to then go and get another part time job just so that they don't receive tax credits or benefits.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that if offered full hours, and there is no reason not to take full hours, i..e illness, childcare etc, and those hours are declined with the sole intention of maximising benefit and enjoying time with your wife...it's wrong.

Obviously there are individual circumstances up and down the land, in which a blanket "this is how many hours you must do" simply wouldn't work.

However, in your situation, you have stated, you just want to have more time with your wife and kids, work 2 days a week, and maximise the benefits.

That must be lovely. But don't expect it not to annoy the people who contribute to your benefits to allow you to carry out your wishes when you are perfectly capable and offered paid work.

Graham_Devon

Wotsthat & Renno.

Question: Should the unemployed, claiming benefits, be free to turn down any job they are offered, and carry on claiming benefits for an unknown amount of time going forward, because they feel working may effect their lifestyle?

Yes or no?

You appear to be onto me, asking all kinds of unrelated, loaded questions, so I can only assume you do believe the unemployed should freely turn down jobs and we should just continue putting our hands in our pockets to keep them fed, watered and homed?

greggymagic

RenovationMan wrote: »

OK let's put it another way.

Imagine a bloke (1) who has a family, he works for the national health in a contract that's pretty secure and pretty easy and allows him to spend a lot of time on the internet posting on the MSE forum. He could get a higher paid job and he could get evening and weekend work but he decides that his anuual salary coupled with his state handout (AKA tax credits) are enough to keep him and his family.

Imagine someone else (bloke 2) who has a more stressful job that takes him overseas for a large amount of time and who works long hours in the evenings and some weekends. He gets paid a higher amount and doesn't qualify for tax credits.

Why is it fair that bloke 2 has to subsidise bloke 1's income?

You missed out bloke 3 who could work 5 days a week but only works 2 days a week and receives top ups to enable him to make that choice financially.

As bloke 2 I have to say bloke 3 Pee's me off big time and I don't really have an opinion on bloke 1

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Wotsthat & Renno.

Question: Should the unemployed, claiming benefits, be free to turn down any job they are offered, and carry on claiming benefits for an unknown amount of time going forward, because they feel working may effect their lifestyle?

Yes or no?

You appear to be onto me, asking all kinds of unrelated, loaded questions, so I can only assume you do believe the unemployed should freely turn down jobs and we should just continue putting our hands in our pockets to keep them fed, watered and homed?

Sorry, not read the whole thread, so not aware of previous discussions.

My tuppence on the above question would be to answer No

Benefits should be a safety net. Somewhere to catch those that fall out of employment until they get back into employment.

I think those on benefits should have to work / train to earn their benefits instead of getting it for turning up once a fortnight.

They should have to sign in / out everyday.

Once people realise they have to "work" to earn the benefits, you'll soon see a change in incentive for people to get "proper" jobs.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Wotsthat & Renno.

Question: Should the unemployed, claiming benefits, be free to turn down any job they are offered, and carry on claiming benefits for an unknown amount of time going forward, because they feel working may effect their lifestyle?

Yes or no?

No they certainly shouldn't. However, if the system is set up so that it allows this to happen then I could see why they would.

I don't know if your example is reality but it's exactly the same as we've been talking about. It's a system, in both cases, that provides a disincentive to work. In both cases the system should change.

My position is identical. I've said earlier that I'd like to see WTC and CTC phased out and tax allowances raised. In your example I'd cut the benefits too.

There's a huge benefit to working in terms of mental and physical wellbeing. We shouldn't be trying to put people off because they are financially better off by not working.

LydiaJ

wotsthat

I'd be interested to know what you think the system should do with people who can only work if they pay for childcare that costs more than they earn.