Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

"Benefit cuts: Monday will be the day that defines this government..." Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    The tax rate for higher earners under labour was actually lower than it is now. When it became apparent that they weren't going to get in they raised it to 50% knowing that the Torys would have to drop it. Notice I said have to, and not want to. Only an economics illiterate thinks high taxes promotes growth. However, if we look at the figures.

    Interest Payments - £48 billion

    The bulk of this is due to Brown's economic illiteracy - also Osborne has to shoulder some of the blame. Money spend on servicing stupidly acquired debt is not available for reinvestment into UK PLC. £48 billion buys a lot of school or hospital upgrades, together with lots of things that go 'bang' for the military.

    Total Welfare Spending - £159 billion

    First off, state pensions (£74 billion) are about 47% of total welfare spending. People that have spent the bulk of their working lives paying tax have a right to expect that state will look after them when the stop working. That still leaves £85 billion to look at. That is still £232 million a day of spending.

    Benefit Cap

    Benefits will be capped as follows:



    • £500 a week for couples (with or without children living with them)
    • £500 a week for single parents whose children live with them
    • £350 a week for single adults who don’t have children, or whose children don’t live with them



    So a single mum will still have a maximum income of £26,000 a year. That is the equivalent of £34,500 before tax.

    According to the Office of National Statistics, the average wage is £26,500 a year before tax.

    So a single parent on benefits doing the square root of F all is getting the equivalent of £8,000 a year more than a person on average wage.

    Which is why our benefits system is in urgent end of reform. It pays to stay at home.
    Clearly you don't have kids.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    You're comparing 2 different situations. The person on £26k doesn't have a child to feed and clothe.
    That's no more than my mum earns after 45 years of constant employment, she's works 6 days a week usually till the evening even after coming home. He manages with me and my sis. We own our own home, we not always flush, but hardly living in poverty.

    Also his point still stands. The mum has £26k, the equivalent of someone earning £34k. I don't think you could make the argument that you cannot support a family on 34k.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Clearly you don't have kids.

    No. That's why I left out things like free school dinners etc etc
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    No. That's why I left out things like free school dinners etc etc
    Right over your head.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Right over your head.
    Well clearly kids are a lot of work. It's a question of social fairness, a person with children and in work possibly wouldn't be getting more than someone who only looks after the children. Clearly it is unfair that the person in work is taxed to support a life-style of equal quality for someone else, who is contributing less. Welfare should be a bare-minimum safety net.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnonymousPenguin)
    Well clearly kids are a lot of work. It's a question of social fairness, a person with children and in work possibly wouldn't be getting more than someone who only looks after the children. Clearly it is unfair that the person in work is taxed to support a life-style of equal quality for someone else, who is contributing less. Welfare should be a bare-minimum safety net.
    Raising kids is a job. One that has an impact on all of us.

    Argue for higher wages, not further immiseration of the poor.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Raising kids is a job. One that has an impact on all of us.

    Argue for higher wages, not further immiseration of the poor.
    Well you can't have higher wages without more productivity and reducing state dependency goes a long way in achieving that. Britain already spends the 2nd highest proportion of GDP on wages compared to EU countries.

    You could make an argument for higher taxes on capital gains, but the tax raised would hardly make a dent in the deficit and probably wouldn't even cover the (small) cuts the coalition has made in the welfare budget.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnonymousPenguin)
    Well you can't have higher wages without more productivity and reducing state dependency goes a long way in achieving that. Britain already spends the 2nd highest proportion of GDP on wages compared to EU countries.

    You could make an argument for higher taxes on capital gains, but the tax raised would hardly make a dent in the deficit and probably wouldn't even cover the (small) cuts the coalition has made in the welfare budget.
    What a load of old toss. As if anyone is ever not dependent on the state.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    What a load of old toss. As if anyone is ever not dependent on the state.
    That doesn't even address my argument. Everyone is dependent to an extent, but people on out of work benefits are entirely dependent on the state as they don't produce anything that can be sold.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnonymousPenguin)
    That doesn't even address my argument. Everyone is dependent to an extent, but people on out of work benefits are entirely dependent on the state as they don't produce anything that can be sold.
    This is such a ridiculous argument. Everyone is dependent on the state. You're making a non-argument. Try again.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    This is such a ridiculous argument. Everyone is dependent on the state. You're making a non-argument. Try again.
    All I am saying is that higher productivity per capita can be achieved by pushing people into work. You're arguing against a specific word I used.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnonymousPenguin)
    All I am saying is that higher productivity per capita can be achieved by pushing people into work. You're arguing against a specific word I used.
    What work? You're making an absurd argument.

    Try again.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyway, this was about parents. Pushing parents of young kids into work is detrimental to everyone.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    What work? You're making an absurd argument.

    Try again.
    There isn't a fixed amount of work in an economy - the French found that out when they introduced the 35h week and unemployment did not go down.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnonymousPenguin)
    There isn't a fixed amount of work in an economy - the French found that out when they introduced the 35h week and unemployment did not go down.
    Do you know the ratio of jobseekers to vacancies? Have a guess, go on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This government is toast they know that so are making these nasty cuts to leave a legacy disgusting
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Do you know the ratio of jobseekers to vacancies? Have a guess, go on.
    Probably 20 to 1 or thereabouts. But that figure doesn't really say anything about how much productivity could be unlocked if people were more strongly incentivized to start businesses or start training. Given the success of workfare in the USA, there's a chance it's quite a bit. I'd love to see some research on that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Do you know the ratio of jobseekers to vacancies? Have a guess, go on.

    Yet somehow our immigrant friends manage to find work.

    i agree with your ratio comments but the cycle has to be broken. And it will only be broken by forcing people into work. Company's are still struggling to recruit. The armed forces and the reserves are still struggling to recruit. And there's still jobs out there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnonymousPenguin)
    Probably 20 to 1 or thereabouts. But that figure doesn't really say anything about how much productivity could be unlocked if people were more strongly incentivized to start businesses or start training. Given the success of workfare in the USA, there's a chance it's quite a bit. I'd love to see some research on that.
    There used to be government funding for training and to start businesses. All cut.

    Success of workfare in US? Evidence?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Yet somehow our immigrant friends manage to find work.
    What all of them? Don't be stupid.

    But yes, a lot of employers will take immigrant labour over British people. They can be paid less, are generally unaware of employment rights, less likely to be unionised and less likely to make a fuss about poor health and safety.

    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    i agree with your ratio comments but the cycle has to be broken. And it will only be broken by forcing people into work. Company's are still struggling to recruit. The armed forces and the reserves are still struggling to recruit. And there's still jobs out there.
    THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH JOBS.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 17, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.