Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That's just not true. It raised less than it should have due to the parasitical nature of rich people, but it raised £1billion.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Budgie)



    You are summing up the problem with right-wing attitudes to welfare; using unrepresentative stories to characterize large groups without looking at the statistics. The fact is that JSA is £71 a week. A food bill alone for one person for a week is £40. You can probably then just about pay for heating, water, electricity, and internet but only just. You would not have money, for example, to travel to visit family who do not live within walking distance. You would be on the poverty line. Right wing people simply do not grasp this, thinking that people on benefits are somehow 'doing better' than people in work. Obviously, benefits claimaints are, looking at their quality of life, on average far, far worse off than people in work.

    In what world???

    A £45 asda shop (that includes the cost of delivery a cost which could be cut if i was really struggling) will last me 3 weeks and there are some items i buy which i don't need. Another £10 MAX over the next three weeks will get me milk and bread. If we take out delivery costs then food costs me a little over £50 for three weeks and i eat fairly well.
    People on benefits arguing about the cost of food need to do their shopping better, there's nothing wrong with smart price or basics food!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnonymousPenguin)
    As far as I cans see if you follow that logic those community projects wouldn't happen or would be greatly diminished.

    They might not be strictly needed, certainly not at the full price, but they're still a valuable contribution to the community and this makes them happen. And I don't see how it would undermining pay and conditions given that it's so strictly limited to a few under-funded areas. I mean it might to an extent in those areas (or it might expand employment a bit due to needed supervision), but not in the whole economy at all.

    And as for the suggestion that it makes it harder to find jobs, I don't think the evidence is there. The DWP document doesn't cite any such evidence; It states that in one study these people found more jobs and in another long-term employment prospects were similar.

    Anyway, I don't have any more time to procrastinate on TSR. So have a nice evening, I won't be posting here anymore.
    You have missed Kibalchich's point. Whether or not the work experience is in the private, public or voluntary sector, the very fact organisations can take people on work experience shows there is a work that needs to be done, and he simply asks that employers should pay for it.

    The DWP's report on its own work programme states people on the programme are less likely to find work than those left to their own devices. Without commenting on the quality of work programme providers, I can think of at least three good reasons for this. People on the work programme have less time to apply for jobs, the work experience they are doing is not useful, and there are few jobs to apply for in the first place. Each of these things are related and go back to the point above.

    If you have a job that needs filled you are naturally going to seek the cheapest way to fill it. If the government is emphasising low-cost apprenticeships and giving you free labour then local authorities are going to sack experienced staff and hire apprentices for less than £100 per week. Likewise, private employers are not going to hire staff nor are they going to give overtime to their existing staff if they can get free staff through the work programme.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blue n white army)
    [...] This tax break for the rich argument is nonsense but seems to be spouted every time someone opposes a conservative view.
    Nonsense?

    Take someone who earns £1,000,000 per year. Their net pay in the tax year 2012/13 is £498,536. Their net pay in the tax year 2013/14 is £540,687. That means they are getting an increase of £42,151. That is enough to hire three people on minimum wage for a year.

    If you think the rich are not getting a tax break you probably have a mental disability.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    Nonsense?

    Take someone who earns £1,000,000 per year. Their net pay in the tax year 2012/13 is £498,536. Their net pay in the tax year 2013/14 is £540,687. That means they are getting an increase of £42,151. That is enough to hire three people on minimum wage for a year.

    If you think the rich are not getting a tax break you probably have a mental disability.
    You clearly ignored the rest of the post.

    INDIVDUALLY the people who actually paid tax at 50% will be paying less, i'm not denying that it's simple maths.

    COLLECTIVELY the amount people paying tax will increase because at 50% high income earners: - didn't come here
    - Chose to use tax avoidance schemes
    - Left the country.

    that said you have provided a perfect example of the bit of my post you've quoted.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blue n white army)
    You clearly ignored the rest of the post.

    INDIVDUALLY the people who actually paid tax at 50% will be paying less, i'm not denying that it's simple maths.

    COLLECTIVELY the amount people paying tax will increase because at 50% high income earners: - didn't come here
    - Chose to use tax avoidance schemes
    - Left the country.

    that said you have provided a perfect example of the bit of my post you've quoted.
    You are arguing two different things.

    All you have shown is that tax revenue will increase; that doesn't contradict the fact that the rich are given a 'tax break'.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maskofsanity)
    You are arguing two different things.

    All you have shown is that tax revenue will increase; that doesn't contradict the fact that the rich are given a 'tax break'.
    I've never argued that the rich aren't getting a tax break.



    People contstantly say "well how come we're cutting X when the rich are getting a tax break" which is a nonsensical argument because the tax break doesn't really cost the economy anything. That is the point i am trying to argue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AJ_Moose)
    If they need to access the internet to find work and such. They can go to the job centre and indeed many charities and local libraries offer free internet access.




    You don't need to spend £40 a week on food to survive as a single person. If you're on benefits you aren't entitled to nice foods. Benefits should be about providing enough so people's basic needs are met. It should be about need and not want you see. You can survive on a £1 a day on food and still meet your basic nutritional requirements. If you want more money to spend, then get out there and pound the streets till you get a job.


    More incentive to find work then.


    I'm not some rich boy talking out of my ****. My family has gone through periods where both parents have been out of work and we've had to carefully budget and use our brains and certainly couldn't afford niceties. Your concept of poverty bears no resemblance to actual poverty. In some countries where real poverty exists there are kids who rummage around on toxic rubbish dumps for bits of metal to trade, parents and children who have to beg on the bloody streets for food. In our country the idea of poverty is when someone can't afford sky TV. It's ridiculous.



    Guessed wrong you pompous little brat.
    I've worked since I was 19 (I'm 25 now). I spent 6 months on JSA then thought **** this and became self-employed.

    Your academic info:

    2010-11 University of Bristol - MA European Literatures
    2007-10 Manchester Metropolitan University - BA English

    Yet you think you can look down at my degree choice? xD A sandwich degree that gets me actual work experience and good job prospects and you picked those pointless pretentious subjects at those mediocre universities yet have the nerve to look down your nose at me? :lolz: You'll come straight out of doing your pointless pretentious course and live off benefits for the next 4 years whining.
    god, you are great.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blue n white army)
    I've never argued that the rich aren't getting a tax break.

    People contstantly say "well how come we're cutting X when the rich are getting a tax break" which is a nonsensical argument because the tax break doesn't really cost the economy anything. That is the point i am trying to argue.
    You did not make that very clear but I do agree agree with you from a purely economical side.

    However, from an individual's point of view, a richer person is paying less tax and the poorer person is getting a cut. Regardless of collective tax balance, you must surely understand this perspective?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maskofsanity)
    You did not make that very clear but I do agree agree with you from a purely economical side.

    However, from an individual's point of view, a richer person is paying less tax and the poorer person is getting a cut. Regardless of collective tax balance, you must surely understand this perspective?
    I understand the perspective but disagree with it entirely.

    I see it all as one big pot and if more money is going in from group x as a whole then group y may not be cut as harshly, i feel a lot of people don't see it this way.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blue n white army)
    I understand the perspective but disagree with it entirely.

    I see it all as one big pot and if more money is going in from group x as a whole then group y may not be cut as harshly, i feel a lot of people don't see it this way.
    Governing a country from a wholly economical perspective - that is, not taking into account equally important aspects such as society's welfare and quality of life - is narrow-minded and won't work in the long-run.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    Post a link to the job.
    Contact Barker Ross in Leicester or Coventry and ask them about the Parcelforce contract.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    With regard to unxome tax given that the personal allowance is reduced for high earners while having risen substantially for everyine else seema to be ignored by the millibrain and testicles fan club.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blue n white army)
    Hate this argument. High tax rates drive rich people away or encourage tax avoidance. The reason it was put up to 50% in the last months of labour was political point scoring because they knew it was costly and that the tories would lower it then they could make the conservatives look like the bad guys.


    When gordon brown raised it to 50% the amount of people declaring a pre tax income over £1million fell from 16,000 to 6,000. Now i know some were lost due to the economic situation but when it was dropped to 45% the number rose to 11,000.
    The decision to raise it to 50% cost the country £7billion (can't remember if this is per annum or for the whole period it was at 50%). at 50% you get more per individual but less collectively.

    This tax break for the rich argument is nonsense but seems to be spouted every time someone opposes a conservative view.
    The tax break for the wealthy is what you call TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS it does not work as they will keep shipping job overseas i.e to China,India etc. Until the standard of living rises in those countries and you can not survive of $2 an hour jobs will continue to be shipped overseas unfortunately. You can bring the corporation tax down to 2% and trust me these folks will still ship jobs overseas as it is cheap labor and they get things done to a pretty high standard and they don't have the fear of employment law
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by THECHOOSENONE)
    The tax break for the wealthy is what you call TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS it does not work as they will keep shipping job overseas i.e to China,India etc. Until the standard of living rises in those countries and you can not survive of $2 an hour jobs will continue to be shipped overseas unfortunately. You can bring the corporation tax down to 2% and trust me these folks will still ship jobs overseas as it is cheap labor and they get things done to a pretty high standard and they don't have the fear of employment law
    does anyone bother reading my posts?

    i'm not talking about trickle down that's a whole different aspect to the issue. I'm talking about the optimum tax rate for higher earner- the rate which yields most money for HMRC, which is not 50%
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Budgie)
    The fact is that JSA is £71 a week. A food bill alone for one person for a week is £40.
    Since when? I managed on £20 a week whilst at uni. And that included things like washing powder / liquid. You don't need to spend that much on food. I didn't exactly scrimp on my food either.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    For example, the DLA/PIP changeovers will reprioritise spending (which is increasing) on disability benefits. That will leave some disabled people with extra needs which are assessed as being of a lower level with less money, but will give more to those who have a higher level of need.

    Given that we're talking about sustainability, and benefits which haven't been looked at often for decades to measure their efficacy, then I think that's quite reasonable.
    That's only half the story though - the overall spend on PIP will be the same as the spend on DLA (http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/disabil...al.shtml#costs ).

    Instead of some people with lower levels of need getting support though and assessments and evidence coming from people's own GPs, Consultants, Social Workers and support workers Atos and Capita will be paid £300-5,000m over 4 years to do 20 minute assessments (I can't link to the invite to tender for the contract but it is attached).

    In terms of sustainability - providing support to people with lower levels of need to get about and stay independent actually reduces welfare costs overall. For example my partner 15 years ago would not have been eligible for enough support to hire a motability car (he used a wheelchair sometimes but most of the time could just about stagger around with a walking frame), without that car he wouldn't have been able to afford a car (insurance companies are particularly unhelpful to 21 yr old male drivers who have adaptions on their car and preexisting medical conditions - imagine a 21 yr old male insurance then multiply it by 10 to come up with the quotes he was getting). Without a car he wouldn't have been able to get to work (lived in the countryside, not able to walk or cycle the 8 miles to town). he *would* have ended up signed off and either claiming JSA or IB/ESA.

    If he hadn't been able to take that oppportunity of a job then and had been forced onto benefits for the 5 years it took for him to be 100% reliant on a wheelchair for mobility he wouldn't have had the skills to get into or stay in the workplace.

    Thats 15 years he worked full time, paid taxes and NI and contributed to "the system". Without being granted High Rate Mobility DLA when he was still able to walk none of that would have been possible.

    Cutting that support for young (and old but newly) disabled people is NOT going to improve the sustainability of the benefits system - it's going to force people into inactivity and reliance SOONER instead of supporitng them to stay working and active where they can.

    The move from DLA to PIP is removing money from disabled people who DO need it in order to remain independent and it is paying that money to private companies. The entire process will cost a fortune and will not save a penny of government money - in fact by changing the playing field and removing support from one area of the benefit system it is likely to ADD to the costs in other areas, on other benefits, support and services.

    [and for the record - when my partner is moved from DLA to PIP - he'll end up £40 a week better off, I'm not arguing against this for personal gain, I'm arguing against it because it is false economy]
    Attached Images
  1. File Type: pdf form.pdf (62.5 KB, 105 views)
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AJ_Moose)
    The amount of money I got played no part in my decision to go self-employed as I was living at the family home and supported. What drove me was my sense of self-worth, desire to be productive.
    And yet you claimed JSA for 6 whole months. Coincidentally the maximum amount of time non-income based JSA is claimable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    And yet you claimed JSA for 6 whole months. Coincidentally the maximum amount of time non-income based JSA is claimable.
    I claimed it as my parents required me to for supporting me. This was 6 years ago... there was no limit on how long you can claim JSA nor do I know of any limit now. I stopped claiming because I became self-employed instead of complaining that there's no jobs.

    I've never blamed anyone for taking benefits.. a few of you seem to be skimming over my post and think I'm putting anyone down for claiming any benefit. I've been complaining about the fact some think it's impossible to live on the amount one gets on benefits when it just isn't and any 'poverty' experienced in this country is usually nothing in comparison to actual poverty in actual poor countries.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...nes-government

    Worth a read. I know some, particularly on this forum (which seems to be UKIP HQ for some reason), will believe it to be liberal, wishy washy, hand ringing nonsense. However it is without a doubt that, as the piece points out, the changes will bring challenges. They will hurt many more people than the "scroungers" we have been told about and all with access to legal advice severely restricted.

    I believe that the government has acted in a disgusting manner when it has come to welfare. I am also saddened that there has been little resistance from any other party - no one has been quick to point out the flaws or lies in the government's case.

    I think the last paragraph in the piece is a good summary: "People should know that historians will record the earthquake of social destruction that happened in their name, while they read of nothing but "scroungers" and the 'soaring benefit bill'."

    Cameron and his boys will be judged for this. With any luck, it will leave his party unelectable for a very long time.
    Oh Polly....She is an absolute embarrassment to the left. Many of my friends who consider themselve to be left wing make it abundantly clear that people like her do not represent them. This kind of reporting is crass and hyperbolic, and all it serves to do is perpetuate myths among the middle classes, who take her word for gospel.

    She is the worst kind of liberal - how much does a Guardian columnist earn? 110k? And then there's also the villa in Tuscany. What does she know about the lives of working people?
 
 
 
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
Poll
Which pet is the best?
Useful resources

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.