MSE News: Half a million could lose disability benefits

~Chameleon~

Dunroamin wrote: »

Your idea of a very rural area and mine are obviously totally different.

Whatever! You can see where I live now then, I take it!

bigboybrother

dktreesea wrote: »

We would be a far wealthier country than we are if the government legislated something similar to Australia, ie for UK income/corporate tax to be paid on all UK based earnings and outlawed transfer pricing. The tax collected from Starbucks, Google and Amazon alone would probably be enough to meet all disabled persons needs for several years.

Utopia!! The tax system in Australia only works for those companies that don't spend time, effort and money to arrange their affairs properly.

You seem to have fotgotten one aspect of it that is very important and was touched on with 'transfer pricing'.

In order to get to the bottom line figure of taxable income, based on income earned in the country it is taxed, you have many variables of what constitutes 'expenses & overheads'

Many creative accountants and lawyers have managed to get the bulk of monies earned away from taxation, even in Australia. You are allowed to charge against income 'those expenses that relate to the earning of that gross profit'.
Maybe all retail outlets (Starbucks) are leased to the Australian subsiduary by the group holding company at a very expensive rental charge. Then we have 'Management Charges', not forgetting the 'Mutual Trading' aspect that sees all of the goods sold, purchased by the holding company and resold to the subsiduary at an inflated price.

Not too much needs to be done to turn a healthy Australian taxable profit into a miserable trading loss!

Morlock

nannytone wrote: »

why should we have any public services? when did it become fair to take peoples money to provide libraries/swimming pools/hospitals?

The Tories are already on to those ideals, libraries and leisure centres are closing up and down the country, and the NHS is being privatised on the quiet. Social security and the NHS will not exist if their plan goes ahead, we'll all have to pay for unemployment and health insurance, on top of the unemployment and health insurance we already pay through national insurance contributions.

dktreesea

bigboybrother wrote: »

Utopia!! The tax system in Australia only works for those companies that don't spend time, effort and money to arrange their affairs properly.

You seem to have fotgotten one aspect of it that is very important and was touched on with 'transfer pricing'.

In order to get to the bottom line figure of taxable income, based on income earned in the country it is taxed, you have many variables of what constitutes 'expenses & overheads'

Many creative accountants and lawyers have managed to get the bulk of monies earned away from taxation, even in Australia. You are allowed to charge against income 'those expenses that relate to the earning of that gross profit'.
Maybe all retail outlets (Starbucks) are leased to the Australian subsiduary by the group holding company at a very expensive rental charge. Then we have 'Management Charges', not forgetting the 'Mutual Trading' aspect that sees all of the goods sold, purchased by the holding company and resold to the subsiduary at an inflated price.

Not too much needs to be done to turn a healthy Australian taxable profit into a miserable trading loss!

You have to be careful in Australia if you want to do a spot of transfer pricing. I worked for a foreign company when I was there who were fined millions for transfer pricing. And recently they have just beefed up their transfer pricing laws. Now the commissioner for taxation can review the "economic substance" of the transferred price. Management charges and franchise fees are very much in their sights. Self assessment is thorny too, not to mention penalties up from 10% to 25% of the avoided tax.

dktreesea

clemmatis wrote: »

It's fine by me if it costs more. Your stuff about people helping themselves to other people's money/the money of strangers suggested it wasn't OK by you. Didn't you say we can't afford current benefits? You didn't then add that we could if we made corporations pay tax.

There remains the problem of assessment, of deciding what services someone receives. My city has an ortho-rehab ward. (Had? I haven't heard anything about it lately.) The consultant's very proud of it. Which elderly patients who've broken hips get to go there, to get decent physio? The ones who are already doing very well without it. (That's -- someone in high places told me -- because it has to justify its existence by getting good results.)

Yes, the NHS are quite difficult to hold accountable. You get the same thing here. Physio for overweight patients doesn't seem to be as good as for patients why have their weight under control, because the former category are seen as contributing to their arthritis. All anecdotal - no proof of this at all. Just what people up here say about their experiences of this particular physiotherapy service.

I don't have a problem with paying for better services, provided the people who need the services get reasonalbe access to them, which isn't what happens now. I don't however, think it a good use of taxpayers money to reward people for being disabled by putting far more money directly into their pockets over and above what they would pay for able bodied folk. That acts as a massive incentive for people who would otherwise not even be considered disabled to talk up their ailments/conditions just so they can get the extra money.

Dunroamin

clemmatis wrote: »

It doesn't matter to me that it costs more. Proper provision following proper assessment is fine by me. But I think many people don't realise it would cost more.


But the question arises why *the disabled* should be singled out in this manner. Why not also give parents vouchers for their children's food and clothing? Why not do the same with pensioners? "Because fraud" is not to me an adequate answer. Stricter assessments will prevent much fraud.

It's also true that my experience of a care package arranged by social services -- I had to pay, but that's irrelevant -- was not good. I didn't mind the Meals on Wheels lunch tasting horrible (I'll eat anything) or being poor nutritionally (the arrangement was temporary); I did mind that *every day*, a large part of it clashed with my then medication. ( I explained; they told me what the other option was; that clashed too. (The social worker who arranged the package knew about the possible problem. I don't blame her. She was great. She had limited resources. The care company was good too, and three of the carers were great.

Anyway. In Utopia, people would get the services they require and yet retain dignity and choice.

I missed the bit abour proper assessment providing more jobs. So, claimants would be assessed by comparatively unskilled "practicioners" like -- but less experienced than -- the social worker, OT? who told my very elderly, very shaky, neighbour that if she couldn't reach things she should get up on a stool (end of expert assessment).

I don't think that disabled people should receive their money everyday money in vouchers anymore than anyone else does but I do think that if you're given extra in the form of DLA/AA for a specific purpose like care/heating/transport then you'd get a better deal by having that provided directly, rather as pensioners get a bus pass as opposed to extra money and parents have to show that the WTC that they claim for childcare has actually been spent on this.

I don't know why you think that more jobs would result in unskilled people doing them. There are large numbers of people who'd love to train as OT/SW/etc - you could even encourage disabled people themselves to train, which would definitely be a win win situation.

nannytone_2

bigboybrother wrote: »

And what my daughters do is my problem? They are in their mid 30's and not my responsibility anymore.

You haven't actually answered the question have you?

it is your problem if you dont either confront them and make sure they do the right thing or report them.
the fact that you know they claim fraudulently makes you complicit in their fraud

nannytone_2

bigboybrother wrote: »

And that just about sums it all up!!

The Job Centre is the centre of the universe when looking for employment!!

Once a week? What would happen if a job came up on a Friday and was taken by the following Wednesday - you wouldn't have even known it ever existed.

And the disability advisor is sitting at their desk every day simply looking for a job that would suit just you? As if!

i receive ESA. i have no requirement to seek work in order to receive benefit .... but i choose to look for work.

you admit that you would have no difficulty in working but choose not to......

nannytone_2

bigboybrother wrote: »

Are you seriously saying that there are no 1 bed flats or studios to rent in your area? Tell you what give me the first part of your post code and I am sure that I could find something.

there are NO 1 bed properties ( social housing) and only two 1 bed private lets who's rents are £25 and £30 repectively above the LHA rate.

even the pensioners sheltered housing are ALL 2 bedroomed.
i could give you the first part of my postcode but it would prove nothing, as i live in a rural area and the postcode covers a vast area

dori2o

bigboybrother wrote: »

And what my daughters do is my problem? They are in their mid 30's and not my responsibility anymore.

You haven't actually answered the question have you?

So, it's alright for you and yours, but completely wrong for everyone else, even those who claim legitimately?


Hippocrit.