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

rogerblack

schrodie wrote: »

Watch out Martin someone's trying to steal your crown!!!
:rotfl::rotfl:

I note that I am pretty much sticking to a 2 pound a day food budget.

Latest discovery - Tesco value rice pudding - 12p/can.
I can't tell the difference between it and Ambrosia, at 94p/can.

Freezer, and being able to cook are absolute essentials.
Well, unless you want to live off 6 cans of value rice pudding a day, and multivits, which admittedly would come in at about 80p/day.

princessdon

Muttleythefrog wrote: »

This is my point. The bottom line is they're just terms of convenience. The reality is there's a pot.. some people take more out than they put in.. most people in fact. How the putting in and taking out is managed is pure politics.. and the words and mechanisms used entirely manufactured. One word is benefits and people seem to regard that as referring to a narrow band of things people can claim (or automatically get).. but it strikes me the word is more more a concept of emotion than anything meaningful to the management of the state (e.g. some will regard child benefit as not a benefit yet DLA as a benefit). For example... people in low paid employment are helped in various ways.. you could call them subsidies, benefits, exemptions, allowances, assistance, credits, rewards, supplements or anything quite frankly. Bottom line is they're probably getting support from the state meaning they're net takers.. getting more out than putting in... what you call that net take is entirely valueless. The complexity of the system (taxation, benefits) is largely testimony to the fact politicians are in a popularity contest yet have to do unpopular things like take your money one way or another... or give as little as possible away. Money has no motive or morality.. it just is... people attach meaning and direction to it... hence when you give £20 in an Xmas card and say 'this is to pay for school books' the money has a habit of actually turning into chocolate.

So I ask again - Given that I pay Tax over the PA (as does everyone else in the UK who are not 100% reliant on benefits and have income that is taxable via HMRC), doesn't that mean that it is an overlapping benefit for people solely on none taxable benefits?

If you get benefits of say £20K PA and pay no tax, and others pay tax over the PA, then this means they are receiving more in benefits and surely it overlaps.

I have yet to see a calculator that also calculates the value of NHS, Schooling, Tax Not Paid into the benefit figures - because it isn't really a benefit I guess.

Though I'd certainly be interested to see such a calculation of course.

schrodie

rogerblack wrote: »

I note that I am pretty much sticking to a 2 pound a day food budget.

My god it's a coup d'!tat!!!

JS477

rogerblack wrote: »

I note that I am pretty much sticking to a 2 pound a day food budget.

£2/day/person for 3 meals is good going.

£14/week/person on food = uber-thrift.

Don't tell Gideon though or he'll cut benefits even more.

1plus1equal3

hi, im sorry i realise im in the wrong place, but not very computer literate, and dont know how to start a new thread, please forgive me.I am on income support due to illness ,havnt been migrated to esa yet.From what i can gather, in april i will be getting a 70pence rise in benefits, i will also have to find £14 a week bedroom tax, and £6 a week council tax.I am in a new 2 bedroom house, and moved here 3 years ago, releasing my 4 bed council house, which was promtly given to a young mum with 2 small daughters.I have read on other threads , that when people have complained about bedroom tax, the replys have been to move home. This is not practical, there are no 1 bed flats, and i cant afford to move.I am on a very low income, and can barely manage now.(i dont get dla) for my illness, as i dont need a carer, but i am frantically worried about all this extra money i need to find.When benefits are awarded the breakdown letter says, the ammount the law says you need to live on blah, blah, blah, so i assume this will be changed from april.Or will it say the ammount the law says you need to live on, but we are not paying it lol.I dont understand why there dosnt seem to be any welfare rights people taking this on, as there must be thousands and thousands of people in the same situation as me, who feel they are going to sink.Once again sorry for being in wrong place, and please be gentle with me.

benefitbaby

UsetheFORCE wrote: »

I will assume this is an error, do you mean a year?

Sadly no, british gas et al stated £1200+ per year

benefitbaby

1plus1equal3 wrote: »

I dont understand why there dosnt seem to be any welfare rights people taking this on, as there must be thousands and thousands of people in the same situation as me, who feel they are going to sink.Once again sorry for being in wrong place, and please be gentle with me.

They have been - CAB, CPAG, Disability Rights UK etc etc... the government had planned a total freeze on benefits, a 1% increase was a concession.

Muttleythefrog

princessdon wrote: »

So I ask again - Given that I pay Tax over the PA (as does everyone else in the UK who are not 100% reliant on benefits and have income that is taxable via HMRC), doesn't that mean that it is an overlapping benefit for people solely on none taxable benefits?

If you get benefits of say £20K PA and pay no tax, and others pay tax over the PA, then this means they are receiving more in benefits and surely it overlaps.

I have yet to see a calculator that also calculates the value of NHS, Schooling, Tax Not Paid into the benefit figures - because it isn't really a benefit I guess.

Though I'd certainly be interested to see such a calculation of course.

Your question. There is no answer... the answer is up to you. Overlapping benefit doesn't really mean anything unless you give it meaning. You then go on to talk about benefits and overlapping benefits but these are terms of your choosing within a narrow frame of reference... the economics of the individual is much more complex when looking at their net economic contribution or take from the state. So that takes us on to your next point... yes.. calculations are complex. What you'd have to do is look at everything the individual pays into the state and what it takes out in the form of money and cost of services. People who are low paid or worse not at all... families with signficant children and people with significant illnesses would trend to being those being among the heavier takers... that's because things like schooling and healthcare are expensive services while income tax is a large contributor to the state income.

But at the end of the day it is all factors relevant that would have to be considered to determine who is a net taker... if someone is a net taker then what you call their complex demands on the system above what they put in is not important... call them benefits, subsidies, monster raving looney tokens.... it's just money. If someone costs the state £2k more per year than they contribute to it then the economy isn't altered by what you call that £2k... what can alter is the politics and perceptions. To save complex calculations... what is inevitably true is that the wealthy will pay significantly more than would be linearly expected if scaled... due to various taxes including income tax and business taxes. This would infer that the majority of people will be net takers because the median will lie below the average (just as you'd see replicated in earnings graphs across society or indeed a company).

princessdon

I have no issues with benefits (I could have to claim them, no one is immune), and I DO see CB as a benefit that I do claim, until they force it from me. I am never a hypocrite. It is and will always be a benefit - just now means tested over generic.

I just really cannot fathom your argument that Personal Allowance is a benefit, we will just have to disagree. I am also probably a net taker (as my daughter has had intensive care from the NHS and owe her life to them, as with my daughter than didn't survive yet had a lot of care).

To give you another perspective. My sister is a nurse and said recently that after childcare she pays, and with HB, CTC, etc most of the domestics are on double, sometimes tripple her take home way. Why she bothered going to Uni and paying loans or why companies have scales of pay I don't know.

Only in the UK could this happen.


So no, I don't think I could ever share your view that because they take 0 for the first 8K then take more and more is a benefit.

We will just have to agree to disagree, but I don't think many workers who pay tax and get no TC etc share your view.

sniggings

BurnleyBob wrote: »

Incorrect. India will get less but other countries will be in clover. The coalition are to increase the foreign aid budget to £10.5B in 2014-2015. That will mean it'll increase above what they believe inflation will run at.

to put that in perspective £10 billion is more than a tenth of total welfare spending (excluding pensions) :eek: