Universal Credits - Self Employed

princessdon

I begrudge those that "take". Whether this is the disabled who are not really disabled, the job seekers who are not really looking for a job, or the "self employed" who use accountants so they don't have much "wage" but high dividends and then claim tax credits or who don't have a real business and created one to avoid JSA and claim benefits.

I have NO problem with the genuine in any of the above groups.

But .. when myself and my OH pay in excess of £40K PA in tax, work long hours and there are people who "work" a few hours a week and claim to work the tax credit limit who get benefits or someone who can afford new items (as the majority of their business is cash in hand) and claim Tax Credits, or create a none profitable business to adjust a loss against PAYE to claim Tax Credits I have a problem.

The problem as it stands is there are loopholes and whist they are not illeagal it is immoral to "decline" a wage and take benefits.

Many SE do this for Tax Credits and so it needs to change.

MissMoneypenny

Blue22 wrote: »

I noted from one of your previous posts that you have children in their twenties? So you were once one of those 'welfare claimants' that took Child Benefit and increased tax allowances from the state? But you want to deny this generation the same handouts that you had?

Mine were still children when tax credits came in and I didn't claim them. We stopped at 2 children as that was all we felt we could afford. Both children were planned and we saved for years so we could afford to lose my wage for a few years and sometimes we did a second job to raise our savings. Then we went without holidays and just ran one car until I started earning again; which was on the same day our youngest started school. Children learn from their parents and both our children are hard workers, worked hard at school (state) and are high wage earners now.

Your "children cost money" is true. Yet it seems to be lost on the "entitled to" class as they just want others to keep their children and they still expect to have holidays, Sky, latest gadget etc.

The welfare system was never invented as a lifestyle choice for the able bodied and we simply can't afford the ever growing welfare bill anymore. The benefits will never be as generous again as they have been over the last decade. Don't forget that it was Labour who bought in ATOS and the work programmes; welfare payments had got out of hand.

It's time to work yourself out of poverty and be an example to your children, as they will have to help pay for all the benefits (and interest on that borrowed money) the 'entiled to' class had over the last decade.

dktreesea

leveller2911 wrote: »

I'm sure Miss Moneypenny will be along to reply but my view of your post is that you fail to relise that having children is a lifestyle choice, no one is forced (rape aside) to have children.The main problem with 21 century UK is the "entitlement" culture.

We have 2 children so why should'nt we pay the same level of tax as a single person?, why should the state pay money to us to care for our children, children I might add we wanted.

We stopped at 2 children because we know we can pay for 2.Why should I pay money from my taxes to a couple living 2 doors down who now have 5 kids, wife is a STAHM ,husband workes part time and has done for years and they receive over £11k a year in benefits not including CTB and HB? and spends most of his time looking after his tropical fish.

Are you seriously suggesting the creators of the benefits system had this in mind ?.

The creators perhaps not, but the current government? For sure.

The welfare payments today are organised the way they are to encourage people to have children. Our birth rate had fallen below the required rate to maintain the current population some years ago. Generous subsidies for children are a huge influence on whether people even decide to have children, let alone have three or four, instead of two, to balance out those who choose to remain childless. With an ever increasing number of people going onto the state pension and living on it for longer, we have to have more children. Otherwise there won't be anyone to pay for those pensions.

The same with the stay at home parent. There isn't enough work to give jobs to all of those who want them. The more people who choose to stay at home and take care of their children, the less pressure on unemployment numbers.

Today's welfare isn't all about alleviating poverty. The pressure in our society to "do the right thing" as in find a partner, get married and have children, is enormous. All apart from the traditional view of "it's the way God intended us to be", in modern terms it means things like two adults, who would otherwise each need separate homes only take up one home. The more children a couple have, the greater likelihood they will have someone to care for them in old age instead of having to move into a state subsidised care home. Haven't you ever been subjected to "When are you going to start a family/have a brother or sister for little Sammy/it would be such a pity for them to grow up alone!!" Or how about "Still being single at your age....Such a disappointment...."? My own family's latest goes along the lines of "You do realise your cousin is already a great grandma. I hope your own children don't take as long to get started as you did!"

Look at the latest tweaking of welfare to only fund low income singles for a room in shared housing rather than their own flat/house. The message to singles couldn't be clearer: "If you want a better deal, as in more help with your costs form other taxpayers, not to mention a better place to live, start breeding."

It's not about the entitlement culture. It's about the government (and the conservatives are no less committed to this than Labour were) making a policy to bring down the average age of the population, and weigh it heavily in favour of people working age and younger, the younger the better.

leveller2911 wrote: »

If people want children then they should pay for them...Yours is a typical lefty view that has left the country in a complete mess , all we hear is "I'm entitled". Try researching the mindset of the Asian economies and you will find they have a completely reverse attitude and guess which economies are growing and wealth created.

How are you going to fund your benefits eutopia?.

It's not that I disagree with you, but have you missed something? This isn't an Asian economy. "If people want children they should pay for them" is not the UK.

We don't fund our current welfare state. We just grow the deficit and devalue the pound. Again, that's a very specific government agenda, aimed at making it worthwhile to do business in the UK, employ local people rather than send the work overseas, and at lowering the minimum wage relative to other Western economies.

For example, In 2004 the pound was worth AUD$2.40. Today it is worth approx AUD$1.53. (source: http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=AUD&view=10Y)

Of the just over £1 trillion pounds of UK debt, 35% of it is owed to overseas investors. How to you manipulate your own currency to reduce, in real terms, the amount that is paid back? By having policies which result in devaluation of the currency (Quantitative easing and an inflated welfare bill, both take a bow.)

Blue22

leveller2911 wrote: »

I'm sure Miss Moneypenny will be along to reply but my view of your post is that you fail to relise that having children is a lifestyle choice, no one is forced (rape aside) to have children.The main problem with 21 century UK is the "entitlement" culture.

If you look at the origins of the welfare state it had little if anything to do with re-distributing wealth from single people to families and everything to do with having a safety net for all who fell on hard times and to lift people out of poverty. A system where taxes were proportionate to income,I'm at a loss to see how you come to a view that the " welfare state has always redistributed money from single people to families" its utter rubbish.

Taken from wikipedia... A welfare state is a "concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth,.....doesn't that mean redistribution?

leveller2911 wrote: »

We have 2 children so why should'nt we pay the same level of tax as a single person?, why should the state pay money to us to care for our children

But I'm guessing the state is paying you money in the form of Child Benefit? And maybe tax credits too? It's people like you, (I assume you are a hard working, decent chap ?) who shouldn't be stigmatised as 'welfare claimants'

leveller2911 wrote: »

We stopped at 2 children because we know we can pay for 2.Why should I pay money from my taxes to a couple living 2 doors down who now have 5 kids

Yes why should you? Yet you still feel you should be paying tax at the same rate as a single person? Giving your money to that couple down the road rather than spend it on your own family.

leveller2911 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting the creators of the benefits system had this in mind ?.

I think you have misunderstood my position. I am actually on the side of people like you. Couples in their late 20's and 30's, who would make bloody good parents but cannot afford it. Couples who pay an arm and a leg to rent a tiny flat, who maybe repaying student loans and who are trying to make responsible provision for their retirement. What choice do they have as their biological clocks tick away, either remain childless or have sites like this one brand you a 'welfare claimant'?

leveller2911 wrote: »

How are you going to fund your benefits eutopia?.

Get Miss Money Penny to pay more tax?

tomsanderson617

Icequeen99 wrote: »

It is much more complicated than that, but as the regulations stand at present you won't be able to offset losses.

If your income is below a certain level from self-employment you will either have to look for work to take it up to the set level or you will be treated as having income at that level (if you don't want to look for additional work).

You won't get any relief for losses. It is much worse for the self-employed than tax credits.

More info can be found here: http://www.litrg.org.uk/News/2012/uc-draft

IQ

Self employed will suffer when uc comes in so will the economy with less new business and higher unemployment

Blue22

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Mine were still children when tax credits came in and I didn't claim them.

But you did claim Child Benefit and have tax allowances? That was my point!

So why should parents today who claim anything at all be treated with such contempt?

princessdon

Blue22 wrote: »

Taken from wikipedia... A welfare state is a "concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth,.....doesn't that mean redistribution?




But I'm guessing the state is paying you money in the form of Child Benefit? And maybe tax credits too? It's people like you, (I assume you are a hard working, decent chap ?) who shouldn't be stigmatised as 'welfare claimants'



Yes why should you? Yet you still feel you should be paying tax at the same rate as a single person? Giving your money to that couple down the road rather than spend it on your own family.



I think you have misunderstood my position. I am actually on the side of people like you. Couples in their late 20's and 30's, who would make bloody good parents but cannot afford it. Couples who pay an arm and a leg to rent a tiny flat, who maybe repaying student loans and who are trying to make responsible provision for their retirement. What choice do they have as their biological clocks tick away, either remain childless or have sites like this one brand you a 'welfare claimant'?



Get Miss Money Penny to pay more tax?

Why do you think they'd be benefit claimants? I have never been entitled to Child Tax Credits (and my youngest is only 4). I do get CB - But they are stopping this in December and yet I can afford to support my own children and put into a pension for my future and pay for childcare. I did this by working. I would never expect the tax payer to pay for my children. I am not niave, things happen and in the future I *may* need to claim benefits to help support my children, but that isn't the same as

a) cooking the books to get help
b) working the number of hours to the second to get help and turning down additional hours
c) drumming up a none existant SE business
d) having children KNOWING I can't support them.

This is where welfare has gone wrong (and OT for this thread). I don't get a pay rise for every child I have, I don't get a reduction in Tax for paying for my children, I don't get anything (as is the case of many others).

Tax Credits are now way out of control (like pension credits) and need to be brought back.

There are families just over who struggle (children ARE expensive) who don't get any or much help and I'd welcome them getting more, but it is abused by *some* and this is where it needs to change.

dktreesea

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

If they work hard to build their business up, then they won't need to go through all the UC conditions. It's too easy under the present welfare system, just to fill in a form once a year for welfare such as tax credits and then watch the welfare payments roll into their bank account every month.

Other welfare claimants i.e. jobseekers; have to carry out conditions every week to get their welfare payments and that motivates a lot of those claimants to get off welfare. Perhaps now that other welfare claimants will also have to carry out conditions under UC, it will motivate them to get off welfare too?

Working hard is necessary but insufficient to build up a business. Many SE people in this business are being constrained by lack of access to affordable capital, not lack of effort. Plus a lot of SE people over the last few years have had to reduce rather than expand the size of their business. Not just because the customers are staying away but because the banks are calling in their loans/reducing their overdrafts at the very time when they need access to those forms of funding just to keep their businesses alive. There would be plenty of self employed people during the recession who would have found themselves having to apply for working tax credit and all the benefits that flow on from that for the first time ever.

I do think its a bit unfair for the government to provide full benefits to someone who only wants to work at their business two or three days a week, and not at a minimum require them to look for work in the PAYE world during the rest of the week.

Does it really matter what self employed people earn or do with their time provided that the benefits they can get are restricted to whatever a person would get (or two if it is a couple and both people are available to work full time , e.g. if the youngest child is already 5) if that person worked full time for the minimum wage?

Anyone working full time on the NMW is probably going to get a subsidy for their housing for the rest of their lives and children for the time they have responsibility for them. Why shouldn't self employed people receive the same access to benefits?

What I mind is SE people being able to work 24 hours a week - (just 24 hours, mind you, across two people) or 30 hours a week if single, and still be able to get maximum benefits, if they are low income, even though they apparently have a three or four day weekend.

Blue22

dktreesea wrote: »

The creators perhaps not, but the current government? For sure.

The welfare payments today are organised the way they are to encourage people to have children. Our birth rate had fallen below the required rate to maintain the current population some years ago. Generous subsidies for children are a huge influence on whether people even decide to have children, let alone have three or four, instead of two, to balance out those who choose to remain childless. With an ever increasing number of people going onto the state pension and living on it for longer, we have to have more children. Otherwise there won't be anyone to pay for those pensions.

What a well written post, thank you

The only thing I would add is that I believe government policies over the last 20 years or so have skewed society enormously. Yes the birth rate has gone up but the increase has not been evenly distributed across society. The birthrate amongst the upper classes have remained stable, has increased dramatically amongst the lower classes and gone down amongst middle income families.

I suppose it is a matter of opinion whether this is a good or bad thing.

I found some statistics that backed this up (sorry I can not find them now) but know they were not ONS published.

Blue22

princessdon wrote: »

Why do you think they'd be benefit claimants? I have never been entitled to Child Tax Credits (and my youngest is only 4).

But to be fair Princessdon your family income is way over average if you are paying over 40K in tax. By definition we can not all be rich, the majority will always be around the average.