JSA, how difficult can it be!

unkle

poppy12345 said:

unkle said:

kaMelo said:

unkle said:

poppy12345 said:

Yup, that's correct because as previously advised, UC is not means tested and the same for Income Related ESA/JSA and Income support.

How can everyone just be "paid" a basic wage?? for means tested benefits how much you're entitled to totally depends on your circumstances and some are entitled to more than others. There's also the benefit cap that applies to some people, which means there's a maximum amount they can claim, regardless of their circumstances.

Upon turning 18 to death you receive, from the state, a basic wage, for now lets say 18,000 which is roughly a full time job at £10 an hour. The only benefits I can see that would be needed over and above that are for one's like disability. Otherwise you have to live on the £18k. We seem to expect a lot of pensioners to live on a lot less!

Over and above that any income you earn through work is taxed, no personal allowance etc and tax rate likely to start in the 30's but needs to actuaries to calculate what rates are required.
We need to get away from the current benefit system and the industry it has created. It's ludicrous and has so many flaws it's ridiculous. It's also allowed companies to underpay a decent wage because the state are picking up the difference. That all started with the working tax credits and the like. We never had that 30 years ago and in general companies paid a wage that people could live on. The state shouldn't be subsidising like it currently does.

Factually you are incorrect, Tax credits were not the beginning. something was put in place back when Thatcher was in power although I cannot remember exactly what it was called. It certainly wasn't generous though, made more generous with the Major Government and eventually evolved to tax credits under Blair.


 As for UBI, have you any idea of the numbers we are talking about to achieve that? It's collosal.
Rough figures,
Current welfare budget including Pensions is around £250 Billion
31 million adults in the UK  x £18000  = £560 Billion 

More than double the amount, your 45% tax rate just became 70% to pay for it.
A UBI does not take into account any personal circumstance either, you get your £18,000 and off you go, no help with housing, disabled needs or anything else, you got your £18,000 and that's it. 
Homeless rates would go through the roof.
If you then try to target help at those in need such as disabled or with housing needs then by definition it's not universal.

Those who tout UBI as a great idea seem to have no inkling of how much it would cost and how little help it would provide to those who actually need it.

The one part I do agree with is that companies should pay enough for people not to have to rely on a state top up to live.

  how much does a single person currently earning minimum wage currently get by way of benefit?

They wouldn't be entitled to anything at all...

Exactly.

poppy12345

unkle said:

poppy12345 said:

unkle said:

kaMelo said:

unkle said:

poppy12345 said:

Yup, that's correct because as previously advised, UC is not means tested and the same for Income Related ESA/JSA and Income support.

How can everyone just be "paid" a basic wage?? for means tested benefits how much you're entitled to totally depends on your circumstances and some are entitled to more than others. There's also the benefit cap that applies to some people, which means there's a maximum amount they can claim, regardless of their circumstances.

Upon turning 18 to death you receive, from the state, a basic wage, for now lets say 18,000 which is roughly a full time job at £10 an hour. The only benefits I can see that would be needed over and above that are for one's like disability. Otherwise you have to live on the £18k. We seem to expect a lot of pensioners to live on a lot less!

Over and above that any income you earn through work is taxed, no personal allowance etc and tax rate likely to start in the 30's but needs to actuaries to calculate what rates are required.
We need to get away from the current benefit system and the industry it has created. It's ludicrous and has so many flaws it's ridiculous. It's also allowed companies to underpay a decent wage because the state are picking up the difference. That all started with the working tax credits and the like. We never had that 30 years ago and in general companies paid a wage that people could live on. The state shouldn't be subsidising like it currently does.

Factually you are incorrect, Tax credits were not the beginning. something was put in place back when Thatcher was in power although I cannot remember exactly what it was called. It certainly wasn't generous though, made more generous with the Major Government and eventually evolved to tax credits under Blair.


 As for UBI, have you any idea of the numbers we are talking about to achieve that? It's collosal.
Rough figures,
Current welfare budget including Pensions is around £250 Billion
31 million adults in the UK  x £18000  = £560 Billion 

More than double the amount, your 45% tax rate just became 70% to pay for it.
A UBI does not take into account any personal circumstance either, you get your £18,000 and off you go, no help with housing, disabled needs or anything else, you got your £18,000 and that's it. 
Homeless rates would go through the roof.
If you then try to target help at those in need such as disabled or with housing needs then by definition it's not universal.

Those who tout UBI as a great idea seem to have no inkling of how much it would cost and how little help it would provide to those who actually need it.

The one part I do agree with is that companies should pay enough for people not to have to rely on a state top up to live.

  how much does a single person currently earning minimum wage currently get by way of benefit?

They wouldn't be entitled to anything at all...

Exactly.

And your point is?

huckster

On the DWP website they publish details of admin costs, so you should be able to do a calculation.  I don't think you will save much, as any new system will still need to administered, no doubt with a new computer system at a huge cost.

With more sophisticated computers and robot technology on the horizon, there will no doubt be a lot of discussions held regarding UBI.  The technology that will be around in even 10 years time, will mean that people will need to look at retraining into different jobs.  It is how you support people during periods, where they are in and out of work.  Any UBI is likely to be set at a rate not to different to benefit rates.  No Government would want to offer an incentive for people not to work, where people are fit and able to work. 

poppy12345

poppy12345 said:

unkle said:

kaMelo said:

unkle said:

poppy12345 said:

Yup, that's correct because as previously advised, UC is not means tested and the same for Income Related ESA/JSA and Income support.

How can everyone just be "paid" a basic wage?? for means tested benefits how much you're entitled to totally depends on your circumstances and some are entitled to more than others. There's also the benefit cap that applies to some people, which means there's a maximum amount they can claim, regardless of their circumstances.

Upon turning 18 to death you receive, from the state, a basic wage, for now lets say 18,000 which is roughly a full time job at £10 an hour. The only benefits I can see that would be needed over and above that are for one's like disability. Otherwise you have to live on the £18k. We seem to expect a lot of pensioners to live on a lot less!

Over and above that any income you earn through work is taxed, no personal allowance etc and tax rate likely to start in the 30's but needs to actuaries to calculate what rates are required.
We need to get away from the current benefit system and the industry it has created. It's ludicrous and has so many flaws it's ridiculous. It's also allowed companies to underpay a decent wage because the state are picking up the difference. That all started with the working tax credits and the like. We never had that 30 years ago and in general companies paid a wage that people could live on. The state shouldn't be subsidising like it currently does.

Factually you are incorrect, Tax credits were not the beginning. something was put in place back when Thatcher was in power although I cannot remember exactly what it was called. It certainly wasn't generous though, made more generous with the Major Government and eventually evolved to tax credits under Blair.


 As for UBI, have you any idea of the numbers we are talking about to achieve that? It's collosal.
Rough figures,
Current welfare budget including Pensions is around £250 Billion
31 million adults in the UK  x £18000  = £560 Billion 

More than double the amount, your 45% tax rate just became 70% to pay for it.
A UBI does not take into account any personal circumstance either, you get your £18,000 and off you go, no help with housing, disabled needs or anything else, you got your £18,000 and that's it. 
Homeless rates would go through the roof.
If you then try to target help at those in need such as disabled or with housing needs then by definition it's not universal.

Those who tout UBI as a great idea seem to have no inkling of how much it would cost and how little help it would provide to those who actually need it.

The one part I do agree with is that companies should pay enough for people not to have to rely on a state top up to live.

  how much does a single person currently earning minimum wage currently get by way of benefit?

They wouldn't be entitled to anything at all...

poppy12345 said:

unkle said:

kaMelo said:

unkle said:

poppy12345 said:

Yup, that's correct because as previously advised, UC is not means tested and the same for Income Related ESA/JSA and Income support.

How can everyone just be "paid" a basic wage?? for means tested benefits how much you're entitled to totally depends on your circumstances and some are entitled to more than others. There's also the benefit cap that applies to some people, which means there's a maximum amount they can claim, regardless of their circumstances.

Upon turning 18 to death you receive, from the state, a basic wage, for now lets say 18,000 which is roughly a full time job at £10 an hour. The only benefits I can see that would be needed over and above that are for one's like disability. Otherwise you have to live on the £18k. We seem to expect a lot of pensioners to live on a lot less!

Over and above that any income you earn through work is taxed, no personal allowance etc and tax rate likely to start in the 30's but needs to actuaries to calculate what rates are required.
We need to get away from the current benefit system and the industry it has created. It's ludicrous and has so many flaws it's ridiculous. It's also allowed companies to underpay a decent wage because the state are picking up the difference. That all started with the working tax credits and the like. We never had that 30 years ago and in general companies paid a wage that people could live on. The state shouldn't be subsidising like it currently does.

Factually you are incorrect, Tax credits were not the beginning. something was put in place back when Thatcher was in power although I cannot remember exactly what it was called. It certainly wasn't generous though, made more generous with the Major Government and eventually evolved to tax credits under Blair.


 As for UBI, have you any idea of the numbers we are talking about to achieve that? It's collosal.
Rough figures,
Current welfare budget including Pensions is around £250 Billion
31 million adults in the UK  x £18000  = £560 Billion 

More than double the amount, your 45% tax rate just became 70% to pay for it.
A UBI does not take into account any personal circumstance either, you get your £18,000 and off you go, no help with housing, disabled needs or anything else, you got your £18,000 and that's it. 
Homeless rates would go through the roof.
If you then try to target help at those in need such as disabled or with housing needs then by definition it's not universal.

Those who tout UBI as a great idea seem to have no inkling of how much it would cost and how little help it would provide to those who actually need it.

The one part I do agree with is that companies should pay enough for people not to have to rely on a state top up to live.

  how much does a single person currently earning minimum wage currently get by way of benefit?

They wouldn't be entitled to anything at all...

Actually, i'll rephrase that. It will depend on how many hours they work, whether they are claiming limited capability for work under UC and whether they are living with parents or not.

unkle

The admin cost seems to be about 7bn.
For me the benefits system seems to be far too complex and you can get lucky or very unlucky depending what path you go down when things are OK and how you choose to spend or save your money in your life.
It's quite easy to be worse off actually working than not in many instances.

theoretica

 If everyone had a basic income of £18k how many would decide not to work as much, or at all, or need a considerable wage to do so? Especially as you suggest taxing the earnings higher than at present.  Which would increase employers costs, and be passed on to customers, so the £18k would no longer be a living wage.  There will be a level of basic income which wouldn't lead to such rampant inflation and undo itself in this way, but it would be much lower.

unkle

£18k was a finger in the air number, you may be right that it'd be too much. But in my view the current system simply doesn't work and needs a radical overhaul. 
The point is if you want to earn more than £18k (or whatever figure) then you work and there is no needing to worry about how many hours etc as you'll lose some 'benefits'. I think everyone would admit that the current system has many cracks and is over complicated.

kaMelo

I think we can all agree the current system is complicated and flawed. If it were to be designed now from new then it would look radically different but it's not a simple as just designing something new. I don't think any politician, whatever their flavour, wants a complicated welfare state. UC is a good example of something that tried to simplify things and it does to an extent but people sometimes live complicated lives that don't always fit into the UC model.  As a result the system has to adapt and be modified to cover all scenario's so the simple system just gets more complicated in that process of adapting. I don't think anyone wants it that way, it just happens.

Also, importantly, my figures were way out. I don't know where I got 31 million adults from but it just didn't seem right and it wasn't. Looking at the latest ONS statistics I could find from 2017 shows it's actually 52 million adults in the UK.
Using that figure of 52 million adults x £18,000 is actually £936 Billion, nearly four times the current welfare budget. It's actually more than current public spending entirely.
I appreciate that £18,000 was a "finger in the air" figure so instead I'll use the current welfare budget implementing UBI in a cost neutral way. This would give a UBI of just over £4800 to every adult in the UK.  Pensioners just got a 45% pay cut to their state pension, many low income families now can't afford the rent. If you think £4800 is not enough, every £1000 you might wish to increase UBI by adds £52 Billion to public spending that needs to be paid for.
There is no guarantee that high earning individuals receiving UBI would pay more tax either, they are more likely to top up their pension schemes with the extra money.

As I said, people who tout UBI as a solution usually do so because it sounds like a good idea, not because they understand the figures involved.

unkle

I think you could make UBI work simply by increasing tax rates to be cost neutral. You haven't allowed for extra taxation.
It would mean someone today earning 50k wouldn't be any better off as such (or £30k, £70k, £100k etc) but would remove the need for the majority of benefits.
But where we agree is it's never likely to happen, we'll continue with the bonkers system or one similar thats fiddled with and all the inherent issues it causes. 
I'll never forget when they brought in the removal of child benefit if you earned over £60k. No thought given to one family with one worker earning £60k compared to a family where both parents were earning £50k each. That to me is just typical of the nonsense that goes on.

kaMelo

unkle said:

I think you could make UBI work simply by increasing tax rates to be cost neutral. You haven't allowed for extra taxation.
It would mean someone today earning 50k wouldn't be any better off as such (or £30k, £70k, £100k etc) but would remove the need for the majority of benefits.
But where we agree is it's never likely to happen, we'll continue with the bonkers system or one similar thats fiddled with and all the inherent issues it causes. 
I'll never forget when they brought in the removal of child benefit if you earned over £60k. No thought given to one family with one worker earning £60k compared to a family where both parents were earning £50k each. That to me is just typical of the nonsense that goes on.

The child benefit removal was not handled well but it needs to be looked at in it's entirety as a simple cost cutting measure. The original proposal was that any family with a higher rate tax payer would loose child benefit completely. Simple to both understand and implement with minimal admin as HMRC know already who is a higher rate tax payer.  Obviously there were flaws to this, not least the two parents who together were earning more than the one parent but were still entitled. No system is flawless or totally fair though. Personally I think they should have gone with the original proposal or scrapped it altogether rather than the system we have now.

Increasing the tax rates does not increase tax revenue in a linear fashion, it's like an upside down bell curve. Tax at 0% will generate no revenue, increasing the tax rates generate more revenue but there comes a point at which tax revenue levels off. Increasing tax levels beyond this point actually results in a decrease in tax revenue all the way up to taxing at 100% which, like taxing at 0% will generate nothing.  Look up Laffer Curve for a more detailed explanation.  
In the UK as an example, when the additional tax rate was reduced from 50% to 45% the revenue generated from those who paid it was virtually unchanged. There was talk at the time whether this was due to an increase in earnings for higher rate or we were, to loosely quote the chair of the OBR at the time, "walking around the peak of the Laffer curve"   The implication being we were around the maximum tax rates and any increase in taxes would likely result in a decrease in revenue.
Important to add that the real wealth is hardly taxed at all as those individuals hardly ever have what can be described as a taxable income. With corporation tax no amount of jumping up and down shouting "We should tax (insert multinational company here) properly" will achieve anything. Anyone claiming it's easy to achieve is lying. It isn't beyond the realms of possibility but it would require everyone co-operating including those countries who currently do very well out of it so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.

The bottom line in funding the welfare state comes down to two choices.  Do you work out what you need to fund everything as you wish to do and then try to generate the tax revenue to pay for it, or, do you work out the maximum revenue you can generate and then try to apportion that revenue as best you can, accepting that sometimes things will be short changed.

Option one is desirable but not sustainable, option two is sustainable but not desirable.