Guest MattP Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Let's not pretend Labour brought these in to combat low wages Captain. My girlfriends parents at the time were on about a joint income of 50k and they were voting Labour as they didn't want their tax credits affected, that's just how out of control it was.
absolutelegend Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Only absolute idiots go to work all week when you can get your house paid for, and cash in your pocket for doing nothing all day. Suckers!!!
Jon the Hat Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Tax credits exist because the minimum wage isn't a living wage due to prices increasing at a much higher rate than inflation. Maybe tax credits aren't the best way of subsidising low wages but do you think raising the minimum wage will have the desired impact? Yes those in low paid work will be paid more, but it will be more expensive for employers to take people on. They will have a budget for wages, and increasing the minimum wage will most likely mean employing fewer people at the lower end, or putting up prices. If prices start going up then increasing the minimum wage will have 0 effect as the cost of living goes up. Ideally the shortfall would be made up by a reduction in wages by those at the top of the business, but I just can't see that happening. Bullshit, if you were genuinely trying to solve that problem then increasing the tax free threshold is a far better solution. The only possible reason for tax credits is to create dependence on the state. It costs something like £7Bn a year to manage, and that doesnt include overpayments written off.
FoxyPV Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 I thought tax credits were there to enable single parents / women to work by reducing the cost of childcare? Reducing the tax threshold on those earning under 12k mean that you be saving £30 odd a week which is still not enough for childcare. I agree that the Tax credits system was a joke and ran farcically but the idea was a sound one.
Rincewind Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Jon you missed the point I was making. My post was in response to the multiple posts that make assumptions that only those that are unemployed receive benefits therefore anyone on benefits is a shirker lazy does not want to work an alcoholic a drug addict. The list goes on. The majority of those on benefits include working families on low wages or part time. Both partners could be working part or full time whilst trying to raise a family. Benefits are there as a safety net so we do not return to the Victorian age where people at the lower end of society were sent to workhouses. Nobody wants that to happen DO THEY? There is more under payments than over payments. A lot of people do not know or cannot understand what they are entitled to. Some are too proud to ask for help. What is happening is like hanging 10 men because even though nine could be innocent the tenth could be guilty of murder.
Guest MattP Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 The majority of those on benefits are ex bankers. The majority of those on benefits is George Osbourne. The majority of those on benefits a Daily Mail Reader. The majority of those on benefits are infants. The majority of those on benefits are pensioners. The majority of those on benefits are tax dodgers. . Benefits are there as a safety net so we do not return to the Victorian age where people at the lower end of society were sent to workhouses. Nobody wants that to happen DO THEY? If someone is on benefits for a significent amount of time and is making no effort to go to work I would quite happily send them to a boot/work/army/concentration camp.
Captain... Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Bullshit, if you were genuinely trying to solve that problem then increasing the tax free threshold is a far better solution. The only possible reason for tax credits is to create dependence on the state. It costs something like £7Bn a year to manage, and that doesnt include overpayments written off. Nothing I have said disagrees with you, I am not advocating tax credits, I'm just saying that the need is still there as minimum wage is not currently a living wage. You've completely ignored my actual question. Do you think that increasing the minimum wage will solve the problem? Or just serve to increase unemployment or drive up prices as labour costs in increase?
Mike Oxlong Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 The majority of those on benefits are ex bankers. The majority of those on benefits is George Osbourne. The majority of those on benefits a Daily Mail Reader. The majority of those on benefits are infants. The majority of those on benefits are pensioners. The majority of those on benefits are tax dodgers. If someone is on benefits for a significent amount of time and is making no effort to go to work I would quite happily send them to a boot/work/army/concentration camp. Personally I'm against concentration camps. There's got to be more proportionate ways of massaging the unemployment statistics Mein Fuhrer!
Guest MattP Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Personally I'm against concentration camps. There's got to be more proportionate ways of massaging the unemployment statistics Mein Fuhrer! My tongue was in my cheek with the last suggestion.
Rincewind Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Your point is Matt? The majority of those on benefits is George Osbourne. The majority of those on benefits a Daily Mail Reader. Grammar Nazis needed for the above two. The majority of those on benefits are pensioners. This one is pretty close. More is paid to pensioners than to the unemployed and those on benefits. The Tories also have plans to scrap bus passes and the winter fuel allowance. One personal reason not to vote for them. I won't be around when the teenagers of today are pensioners soit would not benefit me at this point in time. If they are scrapped in 30 years time I'm all for it.
Merging Cultures Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Tax credits exist because the minimum wage isn't a living wage due to prices increasing at a much higher rate than inflation. Maybe tax credits aren't the best way of subsidising low wages but do you think raising the minimum wage will have the desired impact? Yes those in low paid work will be paid more, but it will be more expensive for employers to take people on. They will have a budget for wages, and increasing the minimum wage will most likely mean employing fewer people at the lower end, or putting up prices. If prices start going up then increasing the minimum wage will have 0 effect as the cost of living goes up. Ideally the shortfall would be made up by a reduction in wages by those at the top of the business, but I just can't see that happening. Hence the economists definition of 'full employment' or 'non-inflationary rate of unemployment'. There will always be people who are unemployed, or underemployed, whether they are capable of working or not. Fortunately, unemployment, whether forced or voluntary is cyclical. People cycle out of the employment cadre (they get fired, retire, die, have children, other...) which allows others to enter into employment without affecting the inflation rate. Therefore, we should make sure we encourage those who are capable to find work by keeping JSA low. We should definitely support those who are on benefits because they cannot work formally (disability, caring for someone, long-term sick). We need to ensure that these people are properly vetted and GPs are the best way to do that.
DennisNedry Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Your point is Matt? The majority of those on benefits is George Osbourne. The majority of those on benefits a Daily Mail Reader. Grammar Nazis needed for the above two. The majority of those on benefits are pensioners. This one is pretty close. More is paid to pensioners than to the unemployed and those on benefits. The Tories also have plans to scrap bus passes and the winter fuel allowance. One personal reason not to vote for them. I won't be around when the teenagers of today are pensioners soit would not benefit me at this point in time. If they are scrapped in 30 years time I'm all for it. But the vast majority of those pensioners have paid tax their whole lives, and so deserve to get something back. This is contrast to people who have never contributed anything and yet feel no shame collecting their welfare cheques every week. Ken your 'most people on benefits work' quote may be true but it doesn't tell the whole story. For example, my parents are technically claimants, as they get child benefit for my younger sister. However, my dad pays far, far more in tax than he will ever get back in child benefit.
ADK Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Personally if people are truly looking for work I don't see why JSA needs to be "kept low". It's not supposed to be free money and that is the whole problem.
Merging Cultures Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Personally if people are truly looking for work I don't see why JSA needs to be "kept low". It's not supposed to be free money and that is the whole problem. Good point, but it is difficult to create incentives for low skilled employees who are not going to earn much. Look at Lamby.
Captain... Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Good point, but it is difficult to create incentives for low skilled employees who are not going to earn much. Look at Lamby. I don't think Lamby lacked motivation because he was on the dole, he lacked it because he didn't want to compromise his life and supporting Charlton as much as anything, ok the dole enabled that. but isn't he now working anyway? He has found at least 2 jobs in the last 6 months, ok he lost one of them, but quickly found another, or has he been sacked from that one too?
ADK Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 I think Lamby always wanted to work, he just lacked the self motivation and self discipline skills necessary to actually find a job. This is something that a competent job centre advisor ought to be able to pick up on and develop. I don't believe someone who is willing to do piecemeal work in a shit part of London at night is literally lazy. Instead it seems a foxestalk thread telling him what agencies and what jobs to apply for was more effective than a sizable time on JSA (and supposedly being advised how to get work).
Merging Cultures Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Good point, but it is difficult to create incentives for low skilled employees who are not going to earn much. Look at Lamby. I don't think Lamby lacked motivation because he was on the dole, he lacked it because he didn't want to compromise his life and supporting Charlton as much as anything, ok the dole enabled that. but isn't he now working anyway? He has found at least 2 jobs in the last 6 months, ok he lost one of them, but quickly found another, or has he been sacked from that one too? Sounds like he didn't want to work to me. My work stops me from doing all sorts of things. Many others have said work requires effort and sacrifice. I'm glad he's working now though.
Rincewind Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 But the vast majority of those pensioners have paid tax their whole lives, and so deserve to get something back. This is contrast to people who have never contributed anything and yet feel no shame collecting their welfare cheques every week. Ken your 'most people on benefits work' quote may be true but it doesn't tell the whole story. For example, my parents are technically claimants, as they get child benefit for my younger sister. However, my dad pays far, far more in tax than he will ever get back in child benefit. I agree but my point was that the wide spread assumption that only the unemployed claimed benefits when a larger percentage claiming were working. if your income is below a certain amount then you are entitled to have it topped up. if you earn above that amount then you pay tax. i pay tax on the pension that i have but not pension credits. it annoys me when some sat that those on benefit are scroungers and they are etting free money when they are orking 60-70 hours a week. they could get the same not working but choose to work. the majority of those on enefits are being punished for a very tiny minority who abuse the system. instead of targeting them cuts have been put in all benefit claimants hoping to catch the few. more and more working fmilies are being dragged to ithin the safety net level. more and more are struggling with mortgages because they are just above the threshold but still the government plan more cuts for those at the lower -mid earners causing more hardship.
Guest Posted 8 February 2014 Posted 8 February 2014 I still haven't got around to watching the programme but enjoy reading your comments - well 4 or 5 pages in each 10. my feelings on pages 22 - 25 Education is what is needed. Job centre and benefits need updating. Bi-polar is the latest fashionable illness.
Rincewind Posted 8 February 2014 Posted 8 February 2014 Can't wait to join in with this fashionable trend that is bi-polar.
DennisNedry Posted 8 February 2014 Posted 8 February 2014 Can't wait to join in with this fashionable trend that is bi-polar. But how many people claiming Bi-polar prevents them working actually have it?
Webbo Posted 8 February 2014 Posted 8 February 2014 Bi-polar is the latest fashionable illness. I'm in 2 minds about it myself.
Dr The Singh Posted 8 February 2014 Posted 8 February 2014 People are getting confused with wanting to be bi polar bears (bears who like both sexes for sex) and bi polar condition!
Rincewind Posted 8 February 2014 Posted 8 February 2014 But how many people claiming Bi-polar prevents them working actually have it? Ask the doctors they are best qualified to diagnose it. It isn't an illness to make fun of.
Dr The Singh Posted 8 February 2014 Posted 8 February 2014 Ask the doctors they are best qualified to diagnose it. It isn't an illness to make fun of. No it isn't my wife has been bi polar since the birth of our first child, but she has it under control and has never been out of work or claimed benefits!!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.