Tax credits down £280 per month

banner188

And the solution to the benefits culture is simple.

You change the structure of how benefits are served to people. For instance, just like people who work have to jump through hoops to get their money, so should people on benefits. Attendance days and times at job centres etc.. or loss of benefits, just like workers who lose money if they don't show for work or are late.
It is structure that is lacking and that is what is needed, it is not about humiliation. Quite the opposite. Workers have a structure to their working life and it is the single most vital thing.
When someone is on benefits, they dilly dally with them a bit, but don't really provide a structure that a job gives.

Providing a structure will mean they have the mindset to work and also, they might as well because for all the time they are spending getting benefits, they might as well be in work.

It isn't about forced labour or kerbing freedoms. Remember, if you want something from the system, you have to "play ball" with the system or go and grow your own veg and get a tent.

sniggings

banner188 wrote: »

Setting the minimum wage higher will not work, it will just drive the prices up for low cost goods.

I think some people may be barking up the wrong tree by saying working people shouldn't have their wages topped up.
We live in a complex mixed economy where a lot of competing factors make up the system.
Take the fact that the majority of businesses in the uk are small and have a very small turnover. Most of their customers will be low or middle earners. Increasing minimum wage will just get passed back to us when we buy.

sounds good but I know that most big busiinesses can afford to pay higher wages and a lot of smaller ones too, to have the government pick up the slack is only costing us more in the long run, all the admin costs etc etc the tax payer picks those up, so what does the government do, charge more taxes to pay for it, which in turn puts prices up anyway so why not cut of the middle man (tax payer/government) and just get the business to pay their own wages.

A better regulated progressive tax system is what is needed. People on better incomes need to pay their fare share and that wealth transfered to those on lower incomes. Why? Because they need us and the system needs us just as much as it needs doctors, lawyers etc.. it cannot be separated apart. Dustbin men are absolutely vital to the system and should have the dignity of a living wage and if it takes benefits raised through taxation to achieve this, then so be it!!

sounds good but they said that about the min wage to start with and it was proved wrong, I know that most big busiinesses can afford to pay higher wages and a lot of smaller ones too, to have the government pick up the slack is only costing us more in the long run, all the admin costs and benefits etc etc the tax payer picks those up, so what does the government do, charge more taxes to pay for it, which in turn puts prices up anyway so why not cut of the middle man (tax payer/government) and just get the business to pay their own wages.

sniggings

banner188 wrote: »

And the solution to the benefits culture is simple.

You change the structure of how benefits are served to people. For instance, just like people who work have to jump through hoops to get their money, so should people on benefits. Attendance days and times at job centres etc.. or loss of benefits, just like workers who lose money if they don't show for work or are late.
It is structure that is lacking and that is what is needed, it is not about humiliation. Quite the opposite. Workers have a structure to their working life and it is the single most vital thing.
When someone is on benefits, they dilly dally with them a bit, but don't really provide a structure that a job gives.

Providing a structure will mean they have the mindset to work and also, they might as well because for all the time they are spending getting benefits, they might as well be in work.

It isn't about forced labour or kerbing freedoms. Remember, if you want something from the system, you have to "play ball" with the system or go and grow your own veg and get a tent.

would cost a billions.

just have 2 set payments, one for people looking for work one for people unable to work.

Set them right (low) then no structure would be needed.

Pont

Raising the NMW will not solve the problems. In effect any rise will be passed onto the customers (you and me) resulting in higher priced food, clothes etc. therefore nobody will be 'better off' including those on NMW. The net result will be the kickstarting of inflation which will do nobody, in the present economic climate, any good.

I believe that the difference in income between those who work and those who don't, should be measured in disposable income AFTER paying for housing, council tax and travel to work costs. Very little difference at present.

IMO, over generous allowances for housing are very often the root of the problem. Although I don't agree, I can understand, when somebody unemployed states that they 'can't afford' to go to work as they wouldn't be able to pay for their housing/travel to work costs.

banner188

sniggings wrote: »

sounds good but they said that about the min wage to start with and it was proved wrong, I know that most big busiinesses can afford to pay higher wages and a lot of smaller ones too, to have the government pick up the slack is only costing us more in the long run, all the admin costs and benefits etc etc the tax payer picks those up, so what does the government do, charge more taxes to pay for it, which in turn puts prices up anyway so why not cut of the middle man (tax payer/government) and just get the business to pay their own wages.

Wouldn't work because of children. The nmw wage would have to be so high to cover working benefits to a family with 2-3 kids. Also a single bloke doing same job would be earning 500 quid a week for himself only whilst bloke with a family has 500 between them all.

banner188

sniggings wrote: »

would cost a billions.

just have 2 set payments, one for people looking for work one for people unable to work.

Set them right (low) then no structure would be needed.

If you pay people to sit, they will sit and a culture of sitters will develop with it.

Maybe it would cost billions, maybe not. Depends on how you do it. Getting people to go into job centre everyday without fail or lose money is a start and cost very little (maybe travel expenses if they live particularly far)

sniggings

banner188 wrote: »

Wouldn't work because of children. The nmw wage would have to be so high to cover working benefits to a family with 2-3 kids. Also a single bloke doing same job would be earning 500 quid a week for himself only whilst bloke with a family has 500 between them all.

wow this gets confusing, yeah your right that wouldn't be a good outcome.

Guess all thats let is cut benefits but correctly, at the min they must be wasting billions on appeals and admin.

They don't want to cut any benefit if it will loose them votes so loads that should be cut are not, which in turn means the axe fulls heavier on other than it should.Not so much financial wise but just to get through the system is costly to the tax payer.

An example of how daft DWP can be.
I rang to make an enquiry.
asked for NI number, then date of birth, then a date of birth for a pass code but not own date of birth, then a pass code, I did all that then I get through to an operator who then ask for my for some security questions, so the operator ask me my NI number again, I say I thought I was going to get asked security questions, he said yes but I need that first, I thinking what was the last 10 mins about :mad: so I give him it, he then asks me my phone number I say which one, he says the one you have on your form I say I have my mobile on there and my landline he says he doesn't know as the machine just gives the question, so I try my landline, he then asks address, I give him that, then my date of bith, I give him that, then then tells me I failed the questions :eek:, so ask me 3 questions again I say as those were right, maybe it was the phone number, he says I have to ring back as the computer will not reset if I don't:eek: so...yes I had to go thtough all the steps again, 15 mins later, sorry sir you failed again:eek: what I gave you my mobile number this time one has to e correct, sorry sir you failed you need to ring back and try again:eek:
so 15 mins later again, and all those questions again I get to the last question thinking it has to be right this time...no sorry sir you failed the serurity questions, we now have to do a call back to you but as it's 3.30pm it will be either today or Monday before 12.30, so I ask how can I fail those easy questions 3 times, the 3rd guys says oh it's because some files are what is called clerical claims so would not be on the computer system, I say why the !!!!!!!g hell was I not told that on the first call, oh sorry sir but the computer doesn't give us that information:mad:

Oh and they never did ring back on Friday or Monday :rotfl:

princessdon

banner188 wrote: »

Wouldn't work because of children. The nmw wage would have to be so high to cover working benefits to a family with 2-3 kids. Also a single bloke doing same job would be earning 500 quid a week for himself only whilst bloke with a family has 500 between them all.

There are many families who work and don't get any help, perhaps a deterrant for large families in order?

Even as a single parent I wouldn't get any help if I worked over 26 hours a week.

sniggings

princessdon wrote: »

There are many families who work and don't get any help, perhaps a deterrant for large families in order?

Even as a single parent I wouldn't get any help if I worked over 26 hours a week.

you might not get CTC, but what about WTC that is min 30 hours not might just be for single people no kids? you will get housing benefit though.

princessdon

Oh please no more children I have enough! And no I don't get CTC.

The point I was trying to make (and did so badly it appears) is that the cut off for CTC isn't very high (26K after tax and full CT, Rent/Mortgage etc) isn't that high, but the amount they give for 3,4,5 children is TOO high.

Yet the govt seems to think that families are "comfortable" on this low amount and seem to increase benefits for each child - no maximum amount of children. Even TC are too high IMO for families that work the minimum amout of hours. I know UC is addressing this but the thought of a family who work the bare minimum and not a minute more to maximise TC are equally guity of exploiting our benefit system.

Just realised I am still not explaining myself well

What I mean is that there are "jumps and better off" at various stages. A family who work full time and are above the TC limit, may decide to work part time to take advantage. Someone earning £55K may drop 2 hours to get CB (if they have 4 children this would be advantagous).

Whilst you are earning (no matter the amount) it should always be the case of more wages the better off - at the moment there are circumstances where people are not working more or wanting to earn more for fear of losing benefits.