We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

17067077097117121003

Comments

  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Whatever you say Generali. The UK's economy under successive Labour and Conservative stewardships hasn't exactly been laugh a minute either ( nor debt/deficit free ). Scotland is apparently a complete basket case.. within the Union !... To make any changes to 'basket case status' means leaving. Because it's patently obvious that sending MP's down to Westminster isn't working. May as well be skint outside the union with some leeway in doing things differently.. as skint within it, never changing anything and not even having MP's that can get a word in for disrespectful braying every day.

    I realise that it's common to knock the UK's economy but most countries in the world would give their eye teeth to have the economic problems the UK has.
  • Leanne1812
    Leanne1812 Posts: 1,688 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Tromking wrote: »
    I intimated in my previous post a couple of issues where England might be worth aspiring to. Although I only mentioned that in response to your rather arrogant suggestion that Scotland's neighbours were in need of help to have "more equal societies".
    Spare us please.
    I didn't dismiss your opinion, I merely disagreed with it.



    Well I scrolled back about 10 pages and nope, nothing there.....only umbilical cords, we pay for everything and a bit of slating other posters.

    Be honest, you took exception at the very thought that Scotland may one day be a country to aspire to. Get back in your box Scots!

    I'll ask again, what is it Scotland should be aspiring to that England already has?
  • Happygreen
    Happygreen Posts: 2,949 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    CLAPTON wrote: »
    why do you think that very high level of benefits is good for scotland?

    do you think that higher and higher benefits should be paid to people irrespective of their contribution to scotland?

    do you think that scottish people doing only a few hours work serving coffee should be receive more take home pay than a scottish teacher.

    Is that the SNP vision of the future?

    I don't know how you do your maths (coffee and teacher?) but do you honestly think that the benefit cuts are good for English people? Up to the point where hundreds kill themselves and thousands of families are made homeless? I'd prefer a government that doesn't sell banks at a billion £ loss, surely you can see a connection.
    I suppose someone will ask me for "authoritative" figures - do your own work, folks, you will find them.
    First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win - Gandhi
  • Happygreen
    Happygreen Posts: 2,949 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Well said. My feelings exactly ( any also my own fellow Yes voter English husband's ;) ).

    Same here.
    First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win - Gandhi
  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Happygreen wrote: »
    I don't know how you do your maths (coffee and teacher?) but do you honestly think that the benefit cuts are good for English people? Up to the point where hundreds kill themselves and thousands of families are made homeless? I'd prefer a government that doesn't sell banks at a billion £ loss, surely you can see a connection.
    I suppose someone will ask me for "authoritative" figures - do your own work, folks, you will find them.

    Benefits cuts are certainly good for people that pay for benefits.

    I would argue that benefit cuts can also be good for people on benefits. Lower levels of benefits tend to encourage more people into work. Working has many benefits: increased self esteem, lower levels of mental ill health, better physical health.

    Here is an excellent study on the health benefits of work:

    http://www.racp.edu.au/advocacy/health-benefits-of-work

    Pretty much any economics textbook will show you the link between unemployment and benefits. See Acocella and Leoni for example.
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Happygreen wrote: »
    I don't know how you do your maths (coffee and teacher?) but do you honestly think that the benefit cuts are good for English people? Up to the point where hundreds kill themselves and thousands of families are made homeless? I'd prefer a government that doesn't sell banks at a billion £ loss, surely you can see a connection.
    I suppose someone will ask me for "authoritative" figures - do your own work, folks, you will find them.

    ok

    what do you think a person in this circumstances should receive

    -a person working 24 hours per week serving coffee
    -three school age children and a SAHM
    -pays 500 per month in rent
    -pays 35 per month in CT

    what do you think the family 'take home' income should be?

    what do you think a young teacher earns?

    At the high level of benefits there is little or negative incentives for people to work full time, educate themselves, get better jobs etc when they can simply have a easy life being supported by the work of others.
    This isn't good for the people concerned, their children or society.

    The benefits bill continues to rise : do you think that it can continue indefinitely.

    There is no evidence than having to work 35 hours per week will lead to any suicides.

    I do partly agree with you about the banks: they shouldn't have sold the banks cheaply to pay the benefits bill ; instead the benefits should have been cut more and we should have keep the banks to sell at a higher price later.
  • HAMISH_MCTAVISH
    HAMISH_MCTAVISH Posts: 28,592 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 16 November 2015 at 10:22AM
    Happygreen wrote: »
    do you honestly think that the benefit cuts are good for English people? .

    Yes. And they'll be good for Scottish people as well.

    How can it be right for people to work part time on close to minimum wage and receive such a huge subsidy from other taxpayers that their net income is the equivalent of earning 30K or 40K or 50K a year?

    That's Teacher, Doctor or Solicitor money...

    I really do believe that we should have a benefits safety net in place for people, and I actually believe that safety net should probably be more generous over the short term than it is, particularly for initial job seekers benefits, etc.

    But it simply cannot be right that people can take advantage of the tax credit system indefinitely at such an incredibly generous level to the point there is simply no incentive to work more than part time hours at close to minimum wage.

    We should absolutely be encouraging people to earn good incomes, and do all we can to make sure that opportunity is available to anyone that wants to work hard and develop their career, through education, skills training, and creating an environment where businesses can thrive and expand taking on more people.

    But as a society we cannot and should not continue to pay people the same as a Teacher, a Doctor or a Solicitor to work part time in Tesco and stay at home the rest of the week.
    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

    Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

    -- President John F. Kennedy”
  • Leanne1812
    Leanne1812 Posts: 1,688 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Yes.

    How can it be right for people to work part time on close to minimum wage and receive such a huge subsidy from other taxpayers that their net income is the equivalent of earning 30K or 40K or 50K a year?

    That's doctor or solicitor money...

    I really do believe that we should have a benefits safety net in place for people, and I actually believe that safety net should probably be more generous over the short term than it is, particularly for initial job seekers benefits, etc.

    But it simply cannot be right that people can take advantage of the tax credit system indefinitely at such an incredibly generous level to the point there is simply no incentive to work more than part time hours at close to minimum wage.

    I'm interested in discussing this further. Of course it's not right that people on benefits should receive the same or more than someone who is out working, contributing and progressing through life. Are the jobs there though? Is the pay enough to sustain without some sort of top up benefit?

    I think it is very complex and I personally know of cases where people can save & have a cushy life on benefits. Equally though there are those who find it a struggle making ends meet. Living hand to mouth with no real prospect of change. Is it their fault? This is worth debating.

    Also, once again we focus on benefits, what they do to society, who they help and who they hinder. My concern is, once again, why can't we look to the top and the corporations who, in my opinion, shirk from trying to solve this problem. Is it greed or some other reasons that are credible?

    I'm going out now but will catch up later.
  • HAMISH_MCTAVISH
    HAMISH_MCTAVISH Posts: 28,592 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 16 November 2015 at 10:44AM
    Leanne1812 wrote: »
    I'm interested in discussing this further.

    Of course it's not right that people on benefits should receive the same or more than someone who is out working, contributing and progressing through life.

    Agreed.

    Here's some worked examples....
    A family with one parent working for 24 hours a week on £7 an hour, and the other parent not working at all, would earn the following

    With three kids: The family’s total earned income comes to £8,700 (take-home pay is £8,623 after NI). Their tax credits come to £11,930.10. Their council tax assistance is £685.33 and their Housing Benefit comes to another £6,950. On top of that they get child benefit of £2,501.20. That gives a taxpayer-funded benefits total of £22,067.63 (£424.31 a week).

    Add that to the earned income and you get £30,690.53. That money is tax free. If it were earned in the free market by someone not in receipt of benefits it would equate to a pre-tax income of just over £40,500.

    A family, again with one parent working for 24 hours a week on £7 an hour, and the other parent not working at all, would earn the following:

    With no kids: Pay is £8,700 (take-home pay is £8,623 after NI). Council tax help £492.19. Housing benefit £6,706.26. Total benefits (£7,198.45 per year/ £138.38 a week) plus actual earned money comes to a net £15,821.45. If it were earned by a single earner, non-benefit recipient, this would equate to a pre-tax income of about £18,750.

    With two kids: Pay is £8,700 (take-home pay is £8,623 after NI). Total tax credits £9,114.06. Council tax help £432.91. Housing benefit £6,472.35. Child benefit £1,788.80. So total benefits (£17,813.12 per year/ £342.52 a week) plus actual earned money comes to a net £26,436.12. If earned by a single earner, non-benefit recipient, this would equate to a pre-tax income of about £34,500.

    With five kids: Pay is £8,700 (take-home pay is £8,623 after NI). Total tax credits £17,458.86. Council tax help £753.38 Housing benefit £7,831.89. Child benefit £3,926.00. So total benefits (£29,970.13 per year/ £576.27 a week) plus actual earned money comes to a net £38,593.13. If it were earned by a single earner, non-benefit recipient it would equate to a pre-tax income of about £54,000.
    http://moneyweek.com/merryns-blog/the-truth-about-tax-credits/

    Clearly this is absurd and unsustainable.

    You cannot have someone stacking shelves at Tesco for 24 hours a week and earning the same as a Doctor...
    Leanne1812 wrote: »
    Are the jobs there though?

    Is the pay enough to sustain without some sort of top up benefit?

    Well for most people there will be a way to work more hours, to be motivated to better your skills or education to earn more, or to seek development and eventually promotion in the workplace.

    The problem today is the system creates an environment where there is absolutely no incentive for such behaviour.

    And Osborne is increasing wages to at least partly compensate but after that people will have to go out and at least work a few more hours to be in the same position as before the tax credit reductions.

    But the fundamental point remains it is just unsustainable, not to mention completely unfair to those that do work hard for a living, to expect other taxpayers to subsidise such a generous income.

    If that means a few people have to get by on less benefits than they do now then so be it.
    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

    Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

    -- President John F. Kennedy”
  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Leanne1812 wrote: »
    I'm interested in discussing this further. Of course it's not right that people on benefits should receive the same or more than someone who is out working, contributing and progressing through life. Are the jobs there though? Is the pay enough to sustain without some sort of top up benefit?

    I think it is very complex and I personally know of cases where people can save & have a cushy life on benefits. Equally though there are those who find it a struggle making ends meet. Living hand to mouth with no real prospect of change. Is it their fault? This is worth debating.

    Also, once again we focus on benefits, what they do to society, who they help and who they hinder. My concern is, once again, why can't we look to the top and the corporations who, in my opinion, shirk from trying to solve this problem. Is it greed or some other reasons that are credible?

    I'm going out now but will catch up later.

    I would argue that one of the reason that low paid 16 or 20 hour a week jobs exist in such numbers is because that is where you maximise tax credits.

    If you subsidise something you get more of it.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.