Benefits payouts-greater than income tax

124678

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,153
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Bob22A wrote: »
    You fail to add in al the costs of the vast army of people employed to pay out benefits.
    To raise the actual costs of benefits per person to the ridiculous level you claimed it to be, every benefits claimant would have to have their very own benefits employee working in the system. They don't.
  • Turnbull2000Turnbull2000 Posts: 7,588
    Forum Member
    Check this out on MSE

    MoneySavingExpert.com Forum - Am I better off not working?
    I have worked all my life, mainly as a mortgage adviser but when the markets turned I left that and got a job. I lost a lot of money in the process and my income dropped from around 45k to 15k. Last week, me and the OH seperated and there is no chance of a reconcilliation. I have two children aged 7 and 5. Both in school.
    I've been thinking this weekend that it would probably be a good idea to take some time off work - by that I mean maybe six months or so. Just to get back on my feet and think about what I want for the future and get the kids sorted out. I went onto entitled to.co.uk and punched in my figures. I did a comparison between working and not working and by working I am -£220.22 MONTH worse off financially wherweas if I am not working I am £11.53+
  • Bob22ABob22A Posts: 6,830
    Forum Member
    THis is why we have to have benefits cut substantially. It is crazy that people on quite good incomes such as teachers can be better of not working.

    It's no good as some would claim to increase the minimum pay. It would price ouself out of the market place and in any case all the do gooders would be quickly pressing for benefits to be raised to match.

    There is only one option and that is a significant cut in benefits at least 20%. It is something that will have to be done.

    Untill there is a real incentive to work the UK will not be going anywhere. Benefits have to go down and taxes have to go down.
  • mikeydddmikeyddd Posts: 11,564
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    and what do you have to back up your claim that they are talking 'complete nonsense'..

    seriously, what would you have done to solve the problem?

    It's my opinion I don't need evidence, but many of the contributors have been asked to back up their claims and have failed to do so.
  • Saffron787Saffron787 Posts: 547
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Bob22A wrote: »
    THis is why we have to have benefits cut substantially. It is crazy that people on quite good incomes such as teachers can be better of not working.

    It's no good as some would claim to increase the minimum pay. It would price ouself out of the market place and in any case all the do gooders would be quickly pressing for benefits to be raised to match.

    There is only one option and that is a significant cut in benefits at least 20%. It is something that will have to be done.

    Untill there is a real incentive to work the UK will not be going anywhere. Benefits have to go down and taxes have to go down.
    sums it up perfectly
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,916
    Forum Member

    Only slight problem is he wouldn't be eligible for any benefits as he would be voluntarily leaving his job.. :rolleyes:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,916
    Forum Member
    Bob22A wrote: »
    THis is why we have to have benefits cut substantially. It is crazy that people on quite good incomes such as teachers can be better of not working.

    Sorry but that is complete and utter bull****. If a Teacher left their job voluntarily they wouldn't be entitled to any benefits for 6 months and after that they would only get £60 a wekk JSA.
  • deptfordbakerdeptfordbaker Posts: 22,368
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Rossall wrote: »
    They can start by ending Child Benefit payments for the rich. Why does anyone on £150,000 a year need Child Benefit?

    Don't forget the bulk of that projected £164.7 Billion figure is the State Pension.

    I think IB costs around £15 Billion, JSA around £8 Billion and Housing Benefits around £13 Billion.

    There are about a million on JSA. They spend three billion on New Deal.

    For that money they could employ nearly a third on the national minimum wage.

    That third would then have a job, find it much easier to find a better job, get a reference, put work experience on their c.v.s and not claim benefits.

    You would need less staff, pay out less JSA and the jobs needn't be community ones like painting railings. Although they make the place look nice, they don't actually make any money.

    If the jobs involved doing the donkey work under the direction of government supervisors and people in industry, they could provide a very competitive source of cheap labour.

    For example the government spends 12 billion on a new NHS system. Instead of paying all that money they put together a security cleared team of top programmers, that build the system.

    IT skilled unemployed are then given a real job, doing the programming, testing or documenting and sending it in to the main team, to process and assemble. The top programmers are or about 60k+ but the other IT people get national minimum wage or slightly above. The system saves the government billions.

    The find it much easier to get a job and the government have a reference centre that make it impossible for employers to realize the ex job seeker has not worked for a real firm.

    The same could be done for loads of industry's. Unemployed people don't want to work in station coffee bars for NMW, but they would work for that amount if they could get away from the job centre and their useless schemes and have a real chance of doing some thing good, which will give them a much better chance of landing the job they really want.

    New Deal really needs re-evaluating. With no jobs around it just makes profits for the providers. Having your c.v. done for the 100th time, while searching on a pc or newspaper, both of which you could do at home is a waste of tax payers money.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,147
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think we need to careful about labelling all dole claimants as Scroungers. There are many geniune people who have been made redundant, especially during this time of economic downtown. The benefit bill is very high to reflect the harsh economic times that we face. The state does need to get tougher on those who play the system.

    I don't support Labour (or any of the main parties), but one of the things that they did do right was the minimum wage. A bunch of Tory MPs have tried to promote a bill to abolish the minimum wage, but I didn't see Cameron speaking against it. When the Tories get in who knows if the minimum wage will remain?
  • Turnbull2000Turnbull2000 Posts: 7,588
    Forum Member
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5663014/Family-claims-147000-a-year-in-housing-benefit-for-seven-bedroom-home.html
    A family living on benefits is being housed in a seven-bedroom home at a cost to taxpayers of £147,000 a year.

    The rent, of £2,827 a week, is being paid to the owner of the London property by Brent council, which negotiated the deal. The ultimate bill is picked up by the Department for Work and Pensions.
  • Raring_to_goRaring_to_go Posts: 20,565
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Public sector pension liabilities are often quoted as £1 trillion. But don't dare suggest increasing retirement from 60-65 to an age that reflects life expectancy on this forum....

    Well I think the retirement age should be flexible to enable the folk who can live of a reduced income to take early retirement.......

    This should make way for employing all the young folk instead of extending their education and sending 50% of to uni on a doss with no prospect of employment and a mountain of debt.

    Our young folk are the future and they deserve a better deal,
  • Turnbull2000Turnbull2000 Posts: 7,588
    Forum Member
    Well I think the retirement age should be flexible to enable the folk who can live of a reduced income to take early retirement.......

    This should make way for employing all the young folk instead of extending their education and sending 50% of to uni on a doss with no prospect of employment and a mountain of debt.

    Our young folk are the future and they deserve a better deal,

    If you can afford, then of course, why not. But I strongly believe full pension entitlement should not be available until at least 67 - for state and private.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,153
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Bob22A wrote:
    There is only one option and that is a significant cut in benefits at least 20%.
    Of course it isn't the only option. It's an option, a dumb-ass one, and it's an option which would lead to starvation and homelessness for those poor saps who would suffer at the hands of such idiocy. You really think starving people back to work is the solution? How does reducing someone's JSA from £60 to under £50 make it more likely that they will find a job? Explain that to me.
  • paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    Well I think the retirement age should be flexible to enable the folk who can live of a reduced income to take early retirement.......

    This should make way for employing all the young folk instead of extending their education and sending 50% of to uni on a doss with no prospect of employment and a mountain of debt.

    Our young folk are the future and they deserve a better deal,

    Given what has happened to pensions in this country I'm not sure that will be an option for many. Certainly I am not expecting to actually retire as such, just move to where the cost of living is less and open a small bar/restaurant
  • Jayceef1Jayceef1 Posts: 3,515
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DeadJoe wrote: »
    Of course it isn't the only option. It's an option, a dumb-ass one, and it's an option which would lead to starvation and homelessness for those poor saps who would suffer at the hands of such idiocy. You really think starving people back to work is the solution? How does reducing someone's JSA from £60 to under £50 make it more likely that they will find a job? Explain that to me.

    Because quite often you hear the phrase. If I come off benefits and get a job I am worse off financially or i'm only a couple of quid a week better off. That cannot be right and therefore means that benefits are too high.

    Benefits are there as a safety net to ensure that you do suffer undue hardship not as a substitute for work. Until the differential is big enough to make working more worthwhile then this culture of the state owing the jobless everything will continue.
  • Raring_to_goRaring_to_go Posts: 20,565
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If you can afford, then of course, why not. But I strongly believe full pension entitlement should not be available until at least 67 - for state and private.

    There was provision in a final salary pension to take early retirement with a reduced amount at 50, if there was a similar provision in the state pension that would enable many to possible take up part time employment and make way for the younger generation.

    The cost base of the older generation is infinitely less than the younger generation who are starting from scratch so it is a feasible proposition.

    Instead of paying EMA the funds could be used to facilitate early retirement.

    Unfortunately Gordon Brown in his wisdom killed off final salary pensions.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,458
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jayceef1 wrote: »
    Because quite often you hear the phrase. If I come off benefits and get a job I am worse off financially or i'm only a couple of quid a week better off. That cannot be right and therefore means that benefits are too high.

    Benefits are there as a safety net to ensure that you do suffer undue hardship not as a substitute for work. Until the differential is big enough to make working more worthwhile then this culture of the state owing the jobless everything will continue.


    Seriously, benefits are too high? Where do you get that from? A typical person on JSA living in a one-bedroom flat will get something like around £8,000 per year on benefits. How is that too high? That is barely enough to afford a decent life.

    And to people really prefer to be on benefits rather than work? Is the difference in pay that small? How much is the minimum wage in this country? If indeed people think they are better off on benefits, then that probably means that the minimum wage is too low, not that the benefits are too high.
  • deptfordbakerdeptfordbaker Posts: 22,368
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jayceef1 wrote: »
    Because quite often you hear the phrase. If I come off benefits and get a job I am worse off financially or i'm only a couple of quid a week better off. That cannot be right and therefore means that benefits are too high.

    Benefits are there as a safety net to ensure that you do suffer undue hardship not as a substitute for work. Until the differential is big enough to make working more worthwhile then this culture of the state owing the jobless everything will continue.

    Their simply are not any jobs available at the moment. Your strategy is based on the premiss that unemployed people don't want to work and reducing the money or tougher New Deal is the way to make them find work. They can't find jobs that don't exist. Getting tough with the unemployed is not the correct approach.

    What is needed is job creation. If you offered unemployed people a real job they would take it. Even if it meant working for low money, provided it was a job which matched the job seekers skills, education and offered a real career path, they would be over the moon to have such a chance.

    Mostly what happens is people that have good jobs, expect those that do not to take rubbish ones. If the government want people to do washing up they should not be sending so many people to university. They certainly should not be closing science and engineering departments and allowing the students to choose sociology, English literature or photography.

    You also seem to expect them to take a job that means they can no longer afford to pay the rent. Lowing benefits will also have that effect. People need some where to live if they are to do a job. Maybe people who enjoyed the housing boom should have considered that.

    That government spend a fortune on contracts that could have build in job trial clauses. Why try and look for job in a private sector that does not what to know when cheap labour could give this country a huge competitive advantage. Its not the pay its the motivation and career prospects that matter to a job seeker. Treating them like servants to middle class Britain will not solve this problem.
  • paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    angel1ka wrote: »
    Seriously, benefits are too high? Where do you get that from? A typical person on JSA living in a one-bedroom flat will get something like around £8,000 per year on benefits. How is that too high? That is barely enough to afford a decent life.

    Granted this was under a Tory government but when I started work people were making £9K on benefits and I was working for £6.5K (we were comparative, both single males, and the same age - the only difference was I still at the time lived with my parents)

    Granted the wage is now illegal - since it is below the NMW but it does illustrate a point - that for some it can be more lucrative to be on benefits than to work.

    Even more so when you consider Marginal tax rates
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,458
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Granted this was under a Tory government but when I started work people were making £9K on benefits and I was working for £6.5K (we were comparative, both single males, and the same age - the only difference was I still at the time lived with my parents)

    Granted the wage is now illegal - since it is below the NMW but it does illustrate a point - that for some it can be more lucrative to be on benefits than to work.

    Even more so when you consider Marginal tax rates


    so what is the minimum wage at the moment? is it not much over than £9,000 (although I think you are over-estimating benefits, I know people on benefits at the moment and they are getting below 8,000)?
  • deptfordbakerdeptfordbaker Posts: 22,368
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    angel1ka wrote: »
    And to people really prefer to be on benefits rather than work? Is the difference in pay that small? How much is the minimum wage in this country? If indeed people think they are better off on benefits, then that probably means that the minimum wage is too low, not that the benefits are too high.

    Most unemployed people I have met want to work on building sites, do plumbing, IT, social work, shop work etc.

    They do not want to clean toilets, work in rail way station coffee bars at midnight, wash up or work in well know high street restaurants.

    It has very little to do with money. They just know when people with good jobs and careers are treating them like an underclass to prop up the rest of society.

    The age of deference has gone. People are smarter now and know when they are being taken for fools by others hoping to keep up their nice middle class lifestyles.

    Its thatchers fault really, she destroyed society and created the individual.

    Too much attention is paid to car workers and big industry. Most people take JSA over skivvy work. Not because of the money but because they want to do some thing worthwhile with a career ahead. Not get stuck in some dead end job that's as bad a s being unemployed.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,458
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Most unemployed people I have met want to work on building sites, do plumbing, IT, social work, shop work etc.

    They do not want to clean toilets, work in rail way station coffee bars at midnight, wash up or work in well know high street restaurants.

    It has very little to do with money. They just know when people with good jobs and careers are treating them like an underclass to prop up the rest of society.

    The age of deference has gone. People are smarter now and know when they are being taken for fools by others hoping to keep up their nice middle class lifestyles.

    Its thatchers fault really, she destroyed society and created the individual.

    Too much attention is paid to car workers and big industry. Most people take JSA over skivvy work. Not because of the money but because they want to do some thing worthwhile with a career ahead. Not get stuck in some dead end job that's as bad a s being unemployed.


    yes, that makes perfect sense actually.
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Income tax is just one source of money for the government.

    It gets national insurance payments, VAT, tax on ciggies, tax on booze and tax on petrol.

    Apart from national insurance, everyone, including those on benefits pays these other taxes.
  • paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    It is £5.73 per hour for workers aged 22 and over. (see http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1075133294)

    Given a working week of between 37 & 37.5 hours you are talking about £11,024.52 to £11,173.50 per annum

    However as I pointed out that comparison was under the Tories nearly 20 years ago. Or are you saying that benefits were stagnant after 11 years of a Labour government - despite the cost of living going up?

    Of course it does depend on which benefits you claim for and which you qualify for - when working out how much those on benefits actually get.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,458
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It is £5.73 per hour for workers aged 22 and over. (see http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1075133294)

    Given a working week of between 37 & 37.5 hours you are talking about £11,024.52 to £11,173.50 per annum

    However as I pointed out that comparison was under the Tories nearly 20 years ago. Or are you saying that benefits were stagnant after 11 years of a Labour government - despite the cost of living going up?

    Of course it does depend on which benefits you claim for and which you qualify for - when working out how much those on benefits actually get.


    I don't know what was the case 20 years ago, but at the moment a person on JSA living in a one-bedroom flat, gets around roughly £9,000 per year on benefits (sometimes even less).

    JSA: £60 per week
    Housing Benefit: £100 per week
    Council Tax Benefit: £15 per week
Sign In or Register to comment.