What's the fuss about this new benefit caps?

michaels

lisyloo wrote: »

All of those you state above are intended for the recipients.
I'd say there is a difference between tat and what you are doing, which is manipulating your (paper) circumstances to receive the benefit.
Some people (and organisations) manipulate their actual circumstances e.g. sell a DVD on ebay to be "self-employed" or work 16 hours per week.

So I'd say there is a difference between the what is intended and manipulation.

I don't blame anyone doing the best for their own family though.

What about all the contractors who set up as companies in order to pay less NI to take advantage of laws designed to encourage small business start-ups (my assumption that this is why these rules were set up, again only an interpretation not with any evidence)?

lisyloo

I think most sensible people would agree with you but things happen that can't be foreseen and peoples circumstances can change after they have children.

I have no issue whatsoever with helping people who've fallen on hard times or those who genuinely cannot work.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

What about all the contractors who set up as companies in order to pay less NI to take advantage of laws designed to encourage small business start-ups (my assumption that this is why these rules were set up, again only an interpretation not with any effort)?

I used to work as a contractor to reduce my tax costs. I was paying the tax required by me as a UK taxpayer, I broke no laws.

There was a judge I think that said something along the lines of, No man is required to organise his affairs in order to maximise the tax that he pays. Something like that. Perhaps antrobus could Google it....:D

remorseless

Physics wrote: »

A strangely sanctimonious response, given you said "apologies in advance if it sounds rude, I am *really* trying to understand". Because here I am explaining a bunch of reasons why previous governments have made these decisions, without arguing if it's right or wrong, in practice or in principle.

and I am still trying to understand... I claim £0 so for me, whether they clamp all benefits or not as little impact.
It is however very interesting to hear people's feedback to understand what/how they think...
I haven't decided whether I plan to stay in the UK long term, so where the gov decides to spend my tax money is of interest, but also not hugely important, I don't expect to get my NI contribution with me when and if I go

lisyloo

Once you have to start working out 'what parliament intended when hey set the rules' though it all becomes questions of judement and opinion.

In some cases it's difficult I agree. In others it's dead simple.

Was it originally intended when the NHS was set up that those rich enough to pay for their own health care should use the service?

Now - it's "Free at the point of deilvery" - so yes the rich are entitled.

Mummyisbeauty

on the nhs website

The NHS was born out of a long-held ideal that good healthcare should be available to all, regardless of wealth.
http://www.nhs.uk/tools/documents/historynhs.html

lisyloo

What about all the contractors who set up as companies in order to pay less NI to take advantage of laws designed to encourage small business start-ups (my assumption that this is why these rules were set up, again only an interpretation not with any effort)?

I agree, in some case it's hard to know.
I'm not clear on the contractor stuff and TBH what is morally ok for tax avoidance and what isn't, so yes I do agree with your point.
It's shouldn't be down to us to work out what is ok and what isn't ok.

lisyloo

I don't expect to get my NI contribution with me when and if I go

If you are ill - are you expecting the NHS to pay for your care?

michaels

lisyloo wrote: »

In some cases it's difficult I agree. In others it's dead simple.



Now - it's "Free at the point of deilvery" - so yes the rich are entitled.

Just as I am 'entitled' to pay money into my pension to pay less tax and claim benefits.

Just 'cos they are entitled doesn't mean that was what was expected (intended) to happen when the service was set up.

lisyloo

There was a judge I think that said something along the lines of, No man is required to organise his affairs in order to maximise the tax that he pays. Something like that.

This is all well and good, but if no-one contributes (including Amazon, uber. starbucks etc.) we won't have any NHS, roads etc.