MSE News: Prime Minister David Cameron plans welfare crackdown

skintmacflint

business_man wrote: »

What you are promoting is socialism, which I am afraid has no place in today's society.

And if lets imagine for a minute we tax 50% for people in higher income bracket, it would't take long before we start loosing all high earners and all businesses moving away from the UK.

Simple rule if you want businesses which brings high earners along with, you need to keep low taxes for the rich or else loose them.

This is total tosh. High earners pay accountants to legally avoid tax, banks avoid tax , large corporations avoid tax and take huge governemnt grants to set up for a couple years, then leave, private equity companies strip and sell every assest in a company, reduce their workers wages to bare minimum, then move onto their next victim.

You have got to be kidding using that old chestnut. Would be better losing them, where else are they all going to go? China, sorry mate, the developing economies have taken less than 10 years to wise up to labour supply and demand, and workers rights.

Mike_J

I worked for over 25 years before this recession cost me my job. Told by DWP that I was basically entitled to £60 per week to pay the bills for family of 4. After that I would get sod-all as I had decided that it was my responsibility to care for my family and therefore saved. Even had a small part time job on occassional Sunday for 4 hours but this would have been taken off my jobseekers apart from £5. Got off my a##e and found a job. 45 mile commuter, 7 am start 5pm finish. What gets infuriating is not that my boss has enough money to pay an accountant to best utilise the tax rules (dont blame the tax "avoider" its the rule writers that screwed up) but that I know quite a few families (SOME have never worked) who get more in benefits for doing nothing than I bring home for being a decent working class bloke.

OK I admit there may be people who lose out under some of these changes due to circumstances rather then "rightly losing" the handouts BUT there are currently a damn site more who are creaming the system at the expense of workers. Over the last five years benefits and pension have both increased. Due to the job market I haven't had a pay rise in 5 years and it now cost me more to commute than it did. Why do I do it ? Often asked myself the same question but it comes down to pride.

Change away Mr C .....(but as I stated in previous post, if you think you might lose some votes, you wont)

The-Gaffer

Anubis wrote: »

Got a link for that? I would be interested in looking thanks.

ill post these asap, system wont let me post links as im a NEWBIE, once i get PROMOTED to a normal person ill link ya up,

:money:

although googleing 'the 'UKPUBLICSPENDING' website for a thorough breakdown of money spent itemised charts and a complete overview may help ya out,


;);)

DaisyFlower

I think the reforms are good in writing but its unfair its just one group unless more changes are on their way.

If young people want to live alone, then they need to finance that themselves or houseshare.

We need to ensure something is in place to stop those under 25 with children being treated differently otherwise people determined to claim will simply get pregnant.

The next focus should be on child related benefits but i presume that will come with universal credit. I'd imagine that those who have children and claim state help as they cannot afford them (not childcare) cost far more than under 25's do and many of them, like the under 25s, will never have paid into the pot or will have paid minimal that wont ever cover what they take out.

mazza111

business_man wrote: »

If you can't keep your own daughter, your very own blood, you expect random tax payers to pay for her accommodation?

I don't see any logic in this?

Excuse me, where would you like me to put her, hang her from the ceiling? I only have 2 bedrooms now. Not that my house is suitable for her, I have stairs, she can't do stairs. I would pay ANYTHING to make her disability easier.

The place she's in at the moment, is a ground floor flat, rented from council, that lay empty for a year, because it was in such poor condition that no one wanted it. She was working when she started this tenancy. Now she's unable to work.

I have now also realised I have the same hereditary condition as my daughter, although, there's no way I'm affected nearly as bad as she is.

Today, she's going to get either casts of her feet made for insoles, or orthopedic shoes. Fitted for ankle braces, fitted for knee braces, and fitted for wrist braces, but you expect me to take her back into a house with stairs, because DC has changed the goal posts on who can and can't get HB?

My dd was one of the lucky kids, she was able to find work when she was able, and feels terrible now that she can't work. I'm sure she'd swap her disability for the chance to be able to work. I know I would, and although my knees are bad, they are not nearly as bad as she is.


So please, don't tell me to take her back when it's near on impossible.

CKhalvashi

The-Gaffer wrote: »

What a FANTASTIC idea, radical thinking hes gonna loose the youth vote but hey its either that or we keep havin more kids, lettin the immigrants flood in, and build council houses for the kids havin kids culture weve become so fond of, OR we just bankrupt the country OR we all pay even more tax perhaps 2 pound a litre for fuel to fund more kids havin kids weve gotta help anyway we can obviously........................................................

:money:

Errm, whilst I agree with the spirit of the post, I had my kids young (I was 19 when I had my first). This is very common in the Soviet culture that I spent over half of my childhood.

The difference is that I was working full-time, studying full-time and bringing in enough income to support my family, so not all young parents are the same!

CK

CKhalvashi

business_man wrote: »

What you are promoting is socialism, which I am afraid has no place in today's society.

And if lets imagine for a minute we tax 50% for people in higher income bracket, it would't take long before we start loosing all high earners and all businesses moving away from the UK.

Simple rule if you want businesses which brings high earners along with, you need to keep low taxes for the rich or else loose them.

Oh, I'm sorry, I believe that I paid £4.6m in VAT, £9.4m in employers NI and £200k-ish in corporation tax last year, before £120k in personal tax (most of which was at 50%.)

Yes, I claim back as much as I can, but with an effective tax rate of around 70% on profit between the two of us, it's not scared me away yet (I've lived in the UK since December 1990 with a 4 year break between 1998 and 2002).

Whilst I'm not splashing my actual income on an open forum, the bottom line here is that socialism has got a place in society, and my opinion, as a Lib Dem Cllr working with those either homeless/at risk of homeless is that HB is needed for under 25's, and a post I made the other night clarifies why I feel the welfare state you seem to hate is needed in some circumstances. The last thing I need is an already busy workload doubling as a result of DC deciding that he wants to put further pressure on those struggling.

All DC wants to do is make the poor poorer, and this is something I'm strictly against.

CK

rickbonar

I hear they are considering a black tax, so essentially we will have out shades measured against a government chart ranging from 1 to 25 and you will be charged monthly at a rate of £10 x your rating. (and BTW it isn't your hair colour as Iain Duncan Smith wanted)

A pilot scheme is due to be rolled out in the Bradford area in 2013.
And it is proposed that this could eventually replace council tax.

Benefits won't be applied but discounts instead.

Lifes_Grand_Plan

CKhalvashi wrote: »

All DC wants to do is make the poor poorer, and this is something I'm strictly against.

Is that true, or does he actually want to make the country better by avoiding paying out benefits to those who don't need them....

CKhalvashi

Lifes_Grand_Plan wrote: »

Is that true, or does he actually want to make the country better by avoiding paying out benefits to those who don't need them....

As already stated above, the demand that's coming through my own council is that the poor do need them for many varying reasons.

And therefore, as I've stated all along, there is no one unique solution to the problem, without giving the individual officers discretion.

Why the constant battle to stop young people in genuine hardship from going (back) onto the streets?!

I won't repeat myself again :mad: