MSE News: Benefits to rise by less than inflation: full breakdown

JS477

Dunroamin wrote: »

The only person who has mentioned the word "shirker" is you.;)

My point is simply that I have worked with many disabled people who have had decent careers and who haven't been forced into the mindset that disability = benefits. Why you should consider that people with a disability should be consigned to the scrapheap of a life on benefits says more about your perception of their abilities than it does about mine, I'm afraid.

Disability rights should be about helping people to fulfil their potential and play a role in society (as used to be the case) rather than about making it ever easier for them to claim benefits.

Your attitude does a great disservice to people with disabilities.

Perhaps if you just accepted that there are many (more than you know) disabled people for which it is unreasonable to expect them to work then perhaps instead of doing disabled people a disservice you'd be doing them a service.

Even the tories accept this principle!

Muttleythefrog

Dunroamin wrote: »

Whilst I appreciate that both CB and SP are part of the benefits budget, like most people outside MSE, I don't class people who get these as "benefit claimants".

It seems to be a peculiarity of this site for people who get one of these to be classed in the same category as those claiming means tested benefits, presumably because of the high number of people on here who do claim those and like to feel that claiming "benefits" is the norm.

I would use a much wider concept of benefits than most here. And I would do it deliberately to challenge the 'high and mighty attitude of many around'. Reality is most people take more out of the state than they contribute... you would expect business and higher earners.. and single people to be the most likely over-contributors. The reality is for most people they are getting benefits of one form or another.. most working people will be getting a generous income tax rate for example.. an incentive to keep them in work basically... some may call it a subsidy.. but that's just a word as is benefit.

People may pat on the back the single mother who works and tries to pay her way.. yet ironically she may easily be a greater net taker than the person down the road who doesn't want to work and closes the curtains all day living in their self imposed prison. Remember the financial set up we have is simply a result of what politicians think they can get away with... it would of course be quite an embarrassment to target aspiring middle classes (who significantly affect election outcomes) with words like benefits (unless perhaps universal like child)... so much better just to cut or freeze taxes on their activities instead like driving or working. But bottom line is the word benefits doesn't mean much.. state collects certain resources and redistributes those resources.. it does so via whatever mechanisms its leaders see as politically viable and will use various departments to do it. Any debate about what is a benefit is like saying what is big. People give resources to the state and people take resources from the state.. whether one calls sending a child to a regular school an education benefit or simply state schooling is up to the narrator... what is for sure is it costs the state many hundreds of pound per year and that comes from the pot.

bloolagoon

generous income tax rate for example.. an incentive to keep them in work basically... some may call it a subsidy.. but that's just a word as is benefit.


Could you clarify the above? Are you saying the Personal Taxation Allwance is a benefit. If this is the assumption, then yet again it is means tested in reality for lower paid.

clemmatis

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I do know that many people with disabilities can't work, but I think more could than actually do and that many disabilities are not necessarily a bar to working.

We all know they could, given reasonable accommodations and proper support.

At one time, Access to Work would pay a fairly large amount to help disabled people remain in work. Then their rules changed (they have since changed again, but are still, I believe, not as good as they were.

These people -- a charity -- do great work the state, it seems, will not do.

http://www.vision-twentyone.com/

My dad worked all his life in a factory, until he was 64, in spite of being registered disabled, having a brace on his leg and being in constant pain. That was in the days before DLA.

DLA is not an out of work benefit. But it certainly would I imagine have eased his staying in work.

Muttleythefrog

bloolagoon wrote: »

generous income tax rate for example.. an incentive to keep them in work basically... some may call it a subsidy.. but that's just a word as is benefit.


Could you clarify the above? Are you saying the Personal Taxation Allwance is a benefit. If this is the assumption, then yet again it is means tested in reality for lower paid.

Yes... it could be argued it is... the income tax set up and benefits arrangement seems to be to subsidise the low paid and probably moderately and above average paid. Bottom line is many people who are in work get either income related benefits or if earning too much they get subsidised income tax. The income tax mechanism if you like is just one political method to acquire resources for the state.. for those they want to contribute to the pot via this mechanism they'll try to make it as attractive as can be fiscally gotten away with. At the end of the day the state has income and it has outgoings. What you call the incomes and outgoings is rather unimportant... the state for example could set everyone at 80 percent income tax and do away with all other taxation and give some sort of sliding scale income related benefit to compensate the lower earners or non earners. You could call that a working tax credit.. you could call it an income subsidy.. you could call it family income benefit... and then decide what department you want to manage it. They're just words and mechanisms to achieve an end result of income sufficient to meet outgoings.

Net takers or givers would have to be very carefully calculated... some are fairly obvious... but many are not.

bloolagoon

Or they could scrap it and charge everyone 20% of their earnings which is a fair system.

I am sorry but the very fact that the Government set a limit and I have to adhere to this (unlike a benefit you chose to claim), then enforce myself to pay more than others doesn't feel like a positive benefit. In reality it is very much like a progressive taxation system to remove money/income, which is at polar ends of an actual benefit.

seven-day-weekend

clemmatis wrote: »

We all know they could, given reasonable accommodations and proper support.

At one time, Access to Work would pay a fairly large amount to help disabled people remain in work. Then their rules changed (they have since changed again, but are still, I believe, not as good as they were.

These people -- a charity -- do great work the state, it seems, will not do.

http://www.vision-twentyone.com/



DLA is not an out of work benefit. But it certainly would I imagine have eased his staying in work.

It certainly would, he would have been able to have an adapted car, instead of having to cycle every night.

Muttleythefrog

bloolagoon wrote: »

Or they could scrap it and charge everyone 20% of their earnings which is a fair system.

I am sorry but the very fact that the Government set a limit and I have to adhere to this (unlike a benefit you chose to claim), then enforce myself to pay more than others doesn't feel like a positive benefit. In reality it is very much like a progressive taxation system to remove money/income, which is at polar ends of an actual benefit.

You could make an artificial distinction by saying a benefit is something you actively have to claim (something that could be made mockery of with a more effective DWP information system... that for example automated JSA upon becoming unemployed.. and made compulsory to send if necessary to deal with your other issue). But that would be in my view simply an artificial distinction for emotional or socially acceptance reasons. Many people do not like to think of themselves as claiming benefits.. my parents included. But they may then say things like everyone gets child benefit with children so that's not really a benefit... or I work so therefore I'm not on benefits. The unfortunate reality is things like healthcare, education and welfare costs the state a fortune... so you'll tend to find the net takers amongst those who place above average demands on such things. You may find some extremely wealthy people as net takers too.. especially if they don't work which is probably the most effective current mechanism for gaining above average contributions from the wealthy.

bloolagoon

No it is your terminology I disagree with. I benefit from Schools, NHS, Refuse Collection and many others.

I do not benefit from the Government removing my disposable income. It is a charge not a benefit. The only reason they have the Personal Allowance is to reduce the benefits paid to lower workers, this is shown in the way they then advance the taxation for medium/higher earners.

Muttleythefrog

bloolagoon wrote: »

No it is your terminology I disagree with. I benefit from Schools, NHS, Refuse Collection and many others.

I do not benefit from the Government removing my disposable income. It is a charge not a benefit. The only reason they have the Personal Allowance is to reduce the benefits paid to lower workers, this is shown in the way they then advance the taxation for medium/higher earners.

You do benefit from the government removing your disposable income... it goes to paying for those schools, NHS and refuse collection. (remember that the state taking your money and providing services is effectively the alternative to the state taking nothing and providing no services.. people will lie somwhere on some political scale between state controlling all people's resources to those who think it should control none). And if you're on low or moderate income you get a benefit in kind by virtue of paying taxes you could describe as subsidised by the rich. It all ends up in the same pot (or pots of artificial distinction). We all benefit from that central pot... how the contents of that pot are obtained and distributed is a political issue... and what you call the mechanisms of delivery are just words.. terms for reference. The government tomorrow could say we want to encourage middle earners to boost the economy.. and do so by changing income tax bands.. or they could create a new benefit called the middle income guarantee supplement.. or they could call it the DWP anti austerity economic recovery incentive benefit. Whether this is automatic or applied for is most likely to come down to which department manages it..lol... as will probably the name. Of course those recipients might like not to call it a benefit.. because for social reasons some people don't like to think of themselves as takers... reality is most people are. The wealthy in a society like this will dispoportionately contribute to the pot... and often via their businesses as well as personal circumstances. It is however poltiically wise to make most people think they are net contributors... because then they keep doing things like working to offset their actual net take.

The issue at hand here highlights the politics of income collection. The above average earners seem to have done well out of the changes but those at bottom of income scale and perhaps at top do badly. In effect the changes are just a manipulation to attempt to deliver some redress to the income versus outgoings equation while ensuring those who largely determine election outcomes are protected...the aspirational middle classes.