Why is UK soft on benefit scroungers?

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Alfissti
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mpolining.html

Only 12 months suspended sentence for being a scrounger and thief
0
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
A better title for this thread would be, ''Why is the Manchester Crown Court soft on benefit scroungers?''.

(Assuming that 12 months is indeed a soft sentence, which I do not think it is.)
0
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
Wait till you hear about MPs who abuse the expenses system!
2
ktwoodwards
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by Alfissti)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mpolining.html

Only 12 months suspended sentence for being a scrounger and thief
Did you know that 70% of benefits go on pensions, 29% go on disability, health, child care etc, and only 1% is abused. Though that 1% does equal about one billion pounds. Then again, the bankers have managed to avoid paying over 70 billion pounds in taxes. Why is the UK so soft on tax avoiders?
15
Scott.
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
Well she had to pay monies back, although she may not pay them all back.

I'm not sure whether she's fit enough to work, but they'll be mitigating circumstances etc (her illnesses), but the sentence sounds fair.

I think the main thing in these sort of cases, is the fact they're caught and won't be able to get away with anything similar again.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
345rty
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by ktwoodwards)


Did you know that 70% of benefits go on pensions, 29% go on disability, health, child care etc, and only 1% is abused. Though that 1% does equal about one billion pounds. Then again, the bankers have managed to avoid paying over 70 billion pounds in taxes. Why is the UK so soft on tax avoiders?
Because its better to get 50% of something than 100% of nothing.

Additionally many people aren't entirely comfortable with the level to which those who earn a decent income are expected to pay for everyone else.
0
ktwoodwards
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by 345rty)
Because its better to get 50% of something than 100% of nothing.

Additionally many people aren't entirely comfortable with the level to which those who earn a decent income are expected to pay for everyone else.
"Because its better to get 50% of something than 100% of nothing." What's that referring to?

And maybe people should be more compassionate? It's just like paying taxes towards education - would people begrudge that too?
0
Picnic1
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by ktwoodwards)

Did you know that 70% of benefits go on pensions, 29% go on disability, health, child care etc, and only 1% is abused. Though that 1% does equal about one billion pounds. Then again, the bankers have managed to avoid paying over 70 billion pounds in taxes. Why is the UK so soft on tax avoiders?[/FONT]
Well in that case up to 30% of benefits are abused in my eyes.

It's just that the 'abuse' has been placed in to 'law', that sludgy contract (that we don't even sign but have to agree to as a consequence of merely being born here) that we sometimes mistake ourselves (because it serves us to) as thinking as being an objectively moral thing, as being acceptable.

Disability - some are born disabled, some become clearly disabled and some are 'signed off' as disabled when they should really be signed off as 'more or less chose to become unemployed either because they permanently don't try to fit in in a workplace, don't have enough skills to ever not feel persecuted for the merest bit of feedback, don't have enough willpower sought out by them or brought out of them to make anything of themselves or have chosen to put their health in jeapordy by their own choices in life'.

Health - children sometimes have no choice over their health. Their parents might only feed them high fat foods for instance or might smoke in the home near to them.
But adults? Unless they live near a toxic plant, what is the reason to give them benefits for health? They are just part of the 'chose to become unemployed' as above.

Child care benefit given to parents. Is this a joke? You had sex, you gave birth. Nothing to do with the state. Oh you did it to bequeath the nation with some great mind did you? Why didn't you try to become that great mind yourself instead of asking for benefit for someone who you chose to bring in to the world? It's like being a begger in the street who sits down, draws a painting and then holds his hand out looking for money. Not so you can HAVE the painting,. Just because he made the painting 'Look how beautiful it is'. If it sounds slightly pitiful then that is exactly what anyone who claims child benefit essentially does.

However- what I firmly, absolutely, believe is that there should be child care benefit in the form of tokens for CHILDREN that the child chooses, at school and in consultation with adults, what to spend those tokens on. They had no choice in coming in to the world. They had no choice over who their parents are, where they live or what their early experiences of the world will be like.

The tokens would be a set amount for each child but that they could divide up according to their own wishes.

For instance, they could spend a third on clothes, a third on UK educational outings and a third on decorating their bedroom.

Or, instead, they could spend a quarter on UK educational outings, half on foreign travel and a quarter on electronic equipment. (TVs and videogames are educational, leisure and artistic tools).

As they are tokens, it would never be possible for either the child or adults to just 'fritter' it away on alcohol, fast food etc. Even if those things are not necessarily bad in moderation they are not something that it is a school's responsibility to provide.
Certainly the possibility that child benefit, under our current system, could be used by a parent to buy drugs for themselves, thus making them a less in control parent, is just awful to think of, no matter how badly that parent feels, through their limited perspective, life has treated them.
0
345rty
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by ktwoodwards)
"Because its better to get 50% of something than 100% of nothing." What's that referring to?

And maybe people should be more compassionate? It's just like paying taxes towards education - would people begrudge that too?
If you collect every penny of tax due, but drive large amounts of business abroad do you really act for the better?

Many evidently do begrudge paying taxes towards education, hence the support for tuition fees, reduction of EMA, etc.
0
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by ktwoodwards)


Did you know that 70% of benefits go on pensions, 29% go on disability, health, child care etc, and only 1% is abused. Though that 1% does equal about one billion pounds. Then again, the bankers have managed to avoid paying over 70 billion pounds in taxes. Why is the UK so soft on tax avoiders?
Source?
0
x__justmyluck
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by Picnic1)
Well in that case up to 30% of benefits are abused in my eyes.

It's just that the 'abuse' has been placed in to 'law', that sludgy contract (that we don't even sign but have to agree to as a consequence of merely being born here) that we sometimes mistake ourselves (because it serves us to) as thinking as being an objectively moral thing, as being acceptable.

Disability - some are born disabled, some become clearly disabled and some are 'signed off' as disabled when they should really be signed off as 'more or less chose to become unemployed either because they permanently don't try to fit in in a workplace, don't have enough skills to ever not feel persecuted for the merest bit of feedback, don't have enough willpower sought out by them or brought out of them to make anything of themselves or have chosen to put their health in jeapordy by their own choices in life'.

Health - children sometimes have no choice over their health. Their parents might only feed them high fat foods for instance or might smoke in the home near to them.
But adults? Unless they live near a toxic plant, what is the reason to give them benefits for health? They are just part of the 'chose to become unemployed' as above.

Child care benefit given to parents. Is this a joke? You had sex, you gave birth. Nothing to do with the state. Oh you did it to bequeath the nation with some great mind did you? Why didn't you try to become that great mind yourself instead of asking for benefit for someone who you chose to bring in to the world? It's like being a begger in the street who sits down, draws a painting and then holds his hand out looking for money. Not so you can HAVE the painting,. Just because he made the painting 'Look how beautiful it is'. If it sounds slightly pitiful then that is exactly what anyone who claims child benefit essentially does.

However- what I firmly, absolutely, believe is that there should be child care benefit in the form of tokens for CHILDREN that the child chooses, at school and in consultation with adults, what to spend those tokens on. They had no choice in coming in to the world. They had no choice over who their parents are, where they live or what their early experiences of the world will be like.

The tokens would be a set amount for each child but that they could divide up according to their own wishes.

For instance, they could spend a third on clothes, a third on UK educational outings and a third on decorating their bedroom.

Or, instead, they could spend a quarter on UK educational outings, half on foreign travel and a quarter on electronic equipment. (TVs and videogames are educational, leisure and artistic tools).

As they are tokens, it would never be possible for either the child or adults to just 'fritter' it away on alcohol, fast food etc. Even if those things are not necessarily bad in moderation they are not something that it is a school's responsibility to provide.
Certainly the possibility that child benefit, under our current system, could be used by a parent to buy drugs for themselves, thus making them a less in control parent, is just awful to think of, no matter how badly that parent feels, through their limited perspective, life has treated them.
How much tax do you pay?
0
DarkWhite
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by 345rty)
If you collect every penny of tax due, but drive large amounts of business abroad do you really act for the better?

Many evidently do begrudge paying taxes towards education, hence the support for tuition fees, reduction of EMA, etc.
You really think that if we made Google, Amazon, Starbucks, pay their fair share of taxes that they would up sticks and leave? Pull the other one.

Fraud accounts for 0.7% of benefits spend, whilst DWP error costs 0.9%, and 6% of entitled benefits go unclaimed.

In absolute figures, we're talking £1.2bn lost in benefit fraud, but total cost of fraud in the economy is £73bn. £73bn is before you even consider tax avoidance - the legal practices employed by the large corporations in avoiding being liable for tax, such as Starbucks' clever method of buying coffee via Switzerland despite such coffee never touching the ground there. It's not that they're disgruntled at having a high tax rate; Amazon and Starbucks pay literally 0% corporation tax, and Google paid a measly £6m the other year.

By all means, all fraud is bad, and we should tackle fraud in the benefits system, but frankly if I was given a pot of money by the government to spend on recovering owed revenue, I'd be going going after the activity that is costing a hundred times that of benefit fraud. The complaint isn't against going after benefit cheats; it's against going after benefit cheats, portraying it as the biggest scandal to touch the country, and barely scratching the service of FTSE100 corporations who are paying virtually nothing.
1
Катя
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
Daily Mail is your source for "benefit scroungers"?

In all seriousness, though:
Name:  BENEFITS-STREET-MYTH-AND-REALITY.jpg
Views: 197
Size:  354.5 KB
1
nohomo
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Picnic1)
...
2
345rty
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by DarkWhite)
You really think that if we made Google, Amazon, Starbucks, pay their fair share of taxes that they would up sticks and leave? Pull the other one.

Fraud accounts for 0.7% of benefits spend, whilst DWP error costs 0.9%, and 6% of entitled benefits go unclaimed.

In absolute figures, we're talking £1.2bn lost in benefit fraud, but total cost of fraud in the economy is £73bn. £73bn is before you even consider tax avoidance - the legal practices employed by the large corporations in avoiding being liable for tax, such as Starbucks' clever method of buying coffee via Switzerland despite such coffee never touching the ground there. It's not that they're disgruntled at having a high tax rate; Amazon and Starbucks pay literally 0% corporation tax, and Google paid a measly £6m the other year.

By all means, all fraud is bad, and we should tackle fraud in the benefits system, but frankly if I was given a pot of money by the government to spend on recovering owed revenue, I'd be going going after the activity that is costing a hundred times that of benefit fraud. The complaint isn't against going after benefit cheats; it's against going after benefit cheats, portraying it as the biggest scandal to touch the country, and barely scratching the service of FTSE100 corporations who are paying virtually nothing.
Where fraud clearly exists I'm all for pursuing those responsible. Tax is however vastly more complex, especially where multiple tax systems start to come into play. Why not aim for the Manx or Irish approach and drop taxes so people pay here rather than there?

Whilst the system has holes that allow tax to be avoided companies have a duty to their shareholders to exploit them, and anyone with a private pension plan will have an interest in that which for most will outweigh what they might expect to receive in state benefits.

Google and costa may not leave, but how many firms 'tax dodging' with far more mobile operations would? A small number of relatively immobile companies shouldn't be hammered for tax if there is a danger that far more will quietly leave as a result.
0
tengentoppa
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by ktwoodwards)


Did you know that 70% of benefits go on pensions, 29% go on disability, health, child care etc, and only 1% is abused. Though that 1% does equal about one billion pounds. Then again, the bankers have managed to avoid paying over 70 billion pounds in taxes. Why is the UK so soft on tax avoiders?
Financial services bring lots of money to the economy, and London is the financial capital of the world, thanks in part to tax breaks. If the UK cracked down on tax-avoiders companies would take their business elsewhere, the City of London would lose its appeal and we would be in a worse financial situation.
0
DarkWhite
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Source?
I'm not the person you quoted, nor do I have a source for their stats, but here's mind:

http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/Govern...tcm8-27291.pdf

Total £3176 per person
Pensions £1331 (42%)
Disability £485 (15%)
Housing benefits £371 (12%)
Tax credits and child benefits £692 (22%)
Other £297 (9%)

Part of that 9% is JSA.

In my view, tax credits is a burden which employers should take more of by paying employees a living wage, and housing benefits is predominantly wasted by the fact that none of it goes to the claimant - it all goes into the pockets of wealthy landlords because we have a shortage of social housing and a poorly-regulated private rented sector.

But yes, the majority of the benefits bill is unavoidable because it goes on the elderly, the disabled, those who work hard for low pay. Yet these extreme examples of one of the 10 families in the UK with a dozen kids, half claiming benefits, get all the media attention but for some reason I haven't heard about Starbucks and them registering a loss instead of a profit in the UK yet again despite the popping up of even more of their stores.
0
DarkWhite
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by 345rty)
Where fraud clearly exists I'm all for pursuing those responsible. Tax is however vastly more complex, especially where multiple tax systems start to come into play. Why not aim for the Manx or Irish approach and drop taxes so people pay here rather than there?

Whilst the system has holes that allow tax to be avoided companies have a duty to their shareholders to exploit them, and anyone with a private pension plan will have an interest in that which for most will outweigh what they might expect to receive in state benefits.

Google and costa may not leave, but how many firms 'tax dodging' with far more mobile operations would? A small number of relatively immobile companies shouldn't be hammered for tax if there is a danger that far more will quietly leave as a result.
Because they wouldn't be paying here. Starbucks is here, they're registering a loss despite clearly profiting from their recent UK expansions; dropping the tax would not make them pay a single penny more; it would simply remove the liability for them to pay it.

I agree, it is the responsibility of a tax adviser within a company to minimise tax expenditure for example. I'm not saying blame the companies; I'm saying we should tighten up our tax legislation so that they're not allowed to do such ridiculous things. It's the fault of the law.

There is nothing to suggest that they will leave though; that's my point. The sorts of companies we're talking about here with profits in the tens of billions aren't going to leave just because they're running out of places to avoid tax.
0
345rty
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by DarkWhite)
Because they wouldn't be paying here. Starbucks is here, they're registering a loss despite clearly profiting from their recent UK expansions; dropping the tax would not make them pay a single penny more; it would simply remove the liability for them to pay it.

I agree, it is the responsibility of a tax adviser within a company to minimise tax expenditure for example. I'm not saying blame the companies; I'm saying we should tighten up our tax legislation so that they're not allowed to do such ridiculous things. It's the fault of the law.

There is nothing to suggest that they will leave though; that's my point. The sorts of companies we're talking about here with profits in the tens of billions aren't going to leave just because they're running out of places to avoid tax.
Google pay a pile of tax in ireland because that is where they register their profits, the profits made here fill the irish exchequer. Drop the tax rate to become competitive and collect the money here.

You can't target the companies with profits in the tens of billions and avoid hitting the smaller more mobile ones who may well exist in large enough numbers to be more important.
0
DarkWhite
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by 345rty)
Google pay a pile of tax in ireland because that is where they register their profits, the profits made here fill the irish exchequer. Drop the tax rate to become competitive and collect the money here.

You can't target the companies with profits in the tens of billions and avoid hitting the smaller more mobile ones who may well exist in large enough numbers to be more important.
Or just not allow the company to profit in the UK but register it in Ireland. Google aren't going to suddenly drop their UK offices; they have important work and business here.

Of course, but I'm yet to see any evidence of these companies leaving the UK because HMRC have told them they need to pay their way.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Regarding Ofqual's most recent update, do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?

Yes (226)
33.68%
No (445)
66.32%

Watched Threads

View All