Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

elantan

I have a few friends that did refuse full time jobs as they would get even more money working 16 hour weeks and getting topped up ... i'm gonna be honest and say it really annoyed me as I had to work 50 hour weeks to get the same money. I like them also had a young child, I however got married whereas they stayed single but still in a relationship with the father of the child.

Yes it really really did and does still annoy me. but I tended to miss out on all benefits etc anyway due to being married and my husband earning an ok wage ( not a brilliant wage by any stretch of the imagination)

However, I dont believe that working tax credits should be cut straight away, I do believe they should be phased out, as it is an unfair system on some people

Tromking

Leanne1812 wrote: »

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?

Any newly independent country would hope to be aspirational to any and every country, but your more narrow suggestion that it should be aspirational to its "neighbours" (England I suppose?) betrayed a mindset I disagree with. I can handle England coming up short in comparison with any country, I just disagree with the SNP induced idea that Scotland is uniquely predisposed in these islands to think differently.
In answer to your question, it is my perception that Scotland has an ageing population and has struggled in comparison to England to create a ethnically diverse society with the aid of immigration. Couple that with a sometimes febrile and divisive level of political discourse and an undercurrent of sectarianism that just isn't seen in England, then a lot could learned from a more at ease with itself England.

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

However, I dont believe that working tax credits should be cut straight away, I do believe they should be phased out, as it is an unfair system on some people

they are being reduced : isn't that what you want?

Rinoa

Just as well our forum Nats aren't in it for the money.

Alex Bell, Salmond's former policy chief, wrote in his online blog today:

Writing on current affairs blog Rattle.Scot, Mr Bell said: "The SNP's model of independence is broken beyond repair. The party should either build a new one or stop offering it as an alternative to Tory cuts.
"The campaign towards the 2014 vote, and the economic information since, has kicked the old model to death.
"The idea that you could have a Scotland with high public spending, low taxes, a stable economy and reasonable government debt was wishful a year ago - now it is deluded."
It is "debatable" whether a separate Scotland could maintain British levels of spending, he said.
"The fact is a gap exists - Scotland does not earn enough to pay for its current level of spending. Once you accept that, you acknowledge that the SNP's model is broken."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmonds-former-policy-chief-6842162

elantan

I note he only talks about independence through a SNP model, understandable really as that's his background I spose, thank goodness though plenty of people are aware that there is more than the SNP involved in the independence campaign

.string.

Rinoa wrote: »

Just as well our forum Nats aren't in it for the money.

Alex Bell, Salmond's former policy chief, wrote in his online blog today:


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmonds-former-policy-chief-6842162

Has Mr Bell jumped ship or is he reading in a bit of healthy introspection? His remarks link to what I think.

I can respect a bit someone who votes for independence if they, having considered the consequences, decide it's worth it, but where I have a problem is where misrepresentation of the economics is used to sway those sitting on the fence and who become convinced, due to that misrepresentation, to opt for a land of milk and honey that will not exist. Likewise for false arguments about Westminster being anti-Virus, and all Tories being devils, and all Labour not being socialist any more.

I wrote "a bit" because I don't think the true consequences of splitting Scotland from the rest of the UK are truly appreciated and a cyclic popularity of the Indy cause may please today's enthusiasts but have devastating consequences on the young. 15 or possibly 20% drop in income plus a fall in GDP affects not just those who are nicely set up but the next generations, of which a greater proportion will be out of work or, as is likely, "brain drain" to foreign parts. I know this well from personal experience and can tell you that having grandkids abroad is not nice, not nice at all. Families can drift apart while politicians in Edinburgh tell those in Glasgow what to do (Or politicians in Brussels).

Has the rUK bit things to envy? Well of course, it's the greater diversity and vitality than scotland. That is not about any group being better than any other but simply population. Even things like national broadcasting which is enjoyed in Scotland I'm site, as it is here. Scotland can make good programmes, but with a smaller budget, the variety goes down, unless you import it, or pirate the satellite transmissions (that's actually on topic I suppose!). Same with technology and Scirence and the Arts. Oh Scots will laugh a lot at Scottish Commedians, but laugh a lot more with the greater number in rUK.

Leanne1812

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Agreed.

Here's some worked examples....


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...



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.

Hamish, my husband has quite a few colleagues who are entitled to claim working tax credits. We don't btw, so no one thinks I have any vested interest in this issue. He is going to check tonight but after I read him these examples he seems to think you don't get both tax credits & housing benefit. He thinks it is one or the other. Can you or anyone shed any light?

Speaking of my husbands work is quite relevant to this discussion. He works for a large multi national company. Most of us probably shop there or one of its competitors. There are a large number of employees. The majority of tax credit claimants probably work for this type of employer. The problem as he tells me is that most people are employed on a part time contract. It is nigh on impossible to try to extend this. The company say they like to keep a large pool of staff for flexibility. There's also an issue which he is checking out as to whether this exempts the company from having to enter the employees into a pension scheme for 16 hrs or less.



He's off on a tangient now........I can't type fast enough!

An issue also lies where workers on a 16 hr contract without fixed hours would struggle to take on a second job. Quite often, when sales are down people turn up to work even on contracted hours and are told to go home, if they refuse which they are within their rights to do they will be punished by not being offered any overtime in the short term. They might be told that the company may need to look at changing their contract. Lots of underhand methods are used. It's a bloody mess isn't it? Remember this is just one employer we are talking about.

Any solutions people?

I can go on and on about this and I am prepared to. I'm also very open to reform & change.

Leanne1812

A large bargain basement type retailer has opened in a local retail park. they started with 18 employees night shift. This has been reduced to 3 because of the business needs. The 15 colleagues have been given the option of other shifts that don't pay the higher night rate they signed up for. They also get sent home regularly when sales are down. These are real people and real examples. How do these people escape benefit top ups? How do they plan for the future? How do they help the economy get back on its feet when they have very little spare?

Generali

The problem is always that when you move from a system of subsidising almost anything to not subsidising that thing there will be winners and losers.

Imagine some sort of system that encouraged people into working 40 hours a week rather than 16 or 25. Let's not get hung up on the specifics of what that system might be.

So what happens? Workers now, instead of wanting to work 16 hours a week want to work 40. So what do they do? Motivated staff that have skills and options (the sort of people employers like) ask their boss if they can work full time. If the boss says No then perhaps they look for a job elsewhere. Staff retention is now a problem.

Employers ultimately offer the hours employees want within reason.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Hamish, my husband has quite a few colleagues who are entitled to claim working tax credits. We don't btw, so no one thinks I have any vested interest in this issue. He is going to check tonight but after I read him these examples he seems to think you don't get both tax credits & housing benefit. He thinks it is one or the other. Can you or anyone shed any light?

You can check Moneyweek's calculations here....

http://www.entitledto.co.uk/

The problem as he tells me is that most people are employed on a part time contract. It is nigh on impossible to try to extend this. The company say they like to keep a large pool of staff for flexibility. There's also an issue which he is checking out as to whether this exempts the company from having to enter the employees into a pension scheme for 16 hrs or less.

Lots of employers try to use large numbers of low hours staff, for a variety of reasons.

However there is also a large pool of potential employees who demand low hours at work because of tax credits and other benefits.

I have lost track of the number of times managers that work for me have complained that good staff often refuse to work more than part time as they'd "lose some benefits".

The right solution would appear to be more or less what is being proposed by the Tories.

Increase hourly wages and reduce benefits so that the incentive NOT to work is taken away.