TAX ON FULL STATE PENSION APRIL 2027

BlackKnightMonty

Auti said:

Some of the 9.9 million claiming are in work - that seems weird that you can be in full time work and still get UC housing benefit etc - why are companies being subsidied by benefits paid to workers? There seems to be something strange going on.

These are the right questions to be asking…

kinger101

Auti said:

Some of the 9.9 million claiming are in work - that seems weird that you can be in full time work and still get UC housing benefit etc - why are companies being subsidied by benefits paid to workers? There seems to be something strange going on.

If you take the example of a single parent raising 2 children in London, then even if they can do 36 hours per week, on NMW, that ain't going very far.

This is an extreme example, but not uncommon.

I'm more concerned about the people claiming it who are able to work full time but do part-time lifestyle jobs.  And cash in hand stuff.  There's no excuse for an able bodied person with no dependants to not be working full time and possibly more if needed.  

ClashCityRocker1

chuffinnora said:

Conversely, cutting pensions/ benefits/  public sector wages, takes spending power out of the economy.

I understand how it might be seen like that, but all that spend is coming from the tax take. Most of which would be spent by those paying tax anyway. Its a tough balance, but as the debt ratio is increasing by the month and the interest on that ballooning to very high levels, we have to start addressing that with all the pain it entails. Same goes for most other countries. 

It doesn't matter if it is coming from the tax take as long as it remains in circulation. Far better to pay out welfare benefits to the poor that all gets spent, than to cut benefits and reduce higher rate tax which gets squirreled away or even offshored.

I'm sure that won't jibe with what you think should be true, but giving money to the poor, even the undeserving poor, is better for the economy than enriching the top earners a bit more. Contrary to the ongoing and often parroted prevailing wisdom. Which tends to originate from the top earners!

ClashCityRocker1

BlackKnightMonty said:

Cutting the welfare umbilical cord will drive through the behavioural change we need. We all know people who are milking the system. Welfare and benefits are completely out of control. We have 9.9 million working age who receive some form of DWP benefit. We have nearly 13 million now claiming the SP (up by 200k in the last year; that’s the population of Bournemouth !!)

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dwp-benefits-statistics-february-2025/dwp-benefits-statistics-february-2025

Now you want to take away the State Pension!

As I have just said your "milkers of the system" are spending that money and it is staying in circulation. So no matter how galling you find it, cutting it is not going to help. In you world you think all these people will pop down the local factory and boost exports by building jet engines but that's a fantasy.

ClashCityRocker1

housing costs are an issue. We need to build enough accommodation so that prices tumble but that would be a shock for the economy too!

ClashCityRocker1

kinger101 said:

Auti said:

Some of the 9.9 million claiming are in work - that seems weird that you can be in full time work and still get UC housing benefit etc - why are companies being subsidied by benefits paid to workers? There seems to be something strange going on.

If you take the example of a single parent raising 2 children in London, then even if they can do 36 hours per week, on NMW, that ain't going very far.

This is an extreme example, but not uncommon.

I'm more concerned about the people claiming it who are able to work full time but do part-time lifestyle jobs.  And cash in hand stuff.  There's no excuse for an able bodied person with no dependants to not be working full time and possibly more if needed.  

There's a lot of blame going on. "There's no excuse for an able bodied person with no dependents..." well it doesn't take long to come up with a few, and by golly it's a bit sad that so many people want to get everybody onto chain gangs to ensure their usefulness to society.

ClashCityRocker1

I think "cut benefits" is as simplistic as "tax the rich" as a solution to our problems. It didn't work before under Osborne and the rest why should there suddenly be a new result now?

kinger101

ClashCityRocker1 said:

kinger101 said:

Auti said:

Some of the 9.9 million claiming are in work - that seems weird that you can be in full time work and still get UC housing benefit etc - why are companies being subsidied by benefits paid to workers? There seems to be something strange going on.

If you take the example of a single parent raising 2 children in London, then even if they can do 36 hours per week, on NMW, that ain't going very far.

This is an extreme example, but not uncommon.

I'm more concerned about the people claiming it who are able to work full time but do part-time lifestyle jobs.  And cash in hand stuff.  There's no excuse for an able bodied person with no dependants to not be working full time and possibly more if needed.  

There's a lot of blame going on. "There's no excuse for an able bodied person with no dependents..." well it doesn't take long to come up with a few, and by golly it's a bit sad that so many people want to get everybody onto chain gangs to ensure their usefulness to society.

Have you finished whacking straw men?

chuffinnora

Have you finished whacking straw men?

He sounds like an M25 sitter.

Auti

kinger101 said:

Auti said:

Some of the 9.9 million claiming are in work - that seems weird that you can be in full time work and still get UC housing benefit etc - why are companies being subsidied by benefits paid to workers? There seems to be something strange going on.

If you take the example of a single parent raising 2 children in London, then even if they can do 36 hours per week, on NMW, that ain't going very far.

This is an extreme example, but not uncommon.

I'm more concerned about the people claiming it who are able to work full time but do part-time lifestyle jobs.  And cash in hand stuff.  There's no excuse for an able bodied person with no dependants to not be working full time and possibly more if needed.  

Yes I understand that - it is the bit that the wage cannot cover it that that concerns me, and to be fair I have said benefits can be paid but all benefits should be taxed equally as if someone earns the amount of housing benefit rather than claiming it they are taxed - a level playing field. 

There are many minimum wage jobs yet profit driven (more than perhaps necessary) companies paying the least they can get away with knowing that the government will top up the wages - that seems not quite right. I am thinking of big companies.

I also believe if you value your employees productivity would increase but that is another topic.