Universal benefits

Sk84goal

Sk84goal

Well-Known Forumite
Gramaisc said:
What if everybody then became content with receiving their basic living costs? Where would the original input come from?
Click to expand...


Because, unlike the view portrayed by the tabloid press, the majority of people want to get on and improve their, and their families lives. The amounts we are talking about are to cover "Basic" living costs, most people would not like to spend a long time living this way. But it guarantees a safety net is always present.
 
db

db

#chaplife
Sk84goal said:
I believe every man, woman and child should receive a citizens income ... The huge costs incurred in trying to maintain a means tested, age or work related benefits system could be used to part pay for this system, the rest could come from universal taxation ie all are taxed!
Click to expand...
surely that's a bit counter-productive? give everyone money, then tax it off them again.. wouldn't it be easier to, i dunno, just not give it to them in the first place? :?:
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
I'm starting to like the idea of all income being taxed TBH, I'd also like everyone to be on the same tax code too as it would make things a lot simpler. Blanket rule applied to all, much easier to administer. Treat benefits as pay, if you get a lot of benefits then you'll lose a bit in tax.

I'd then demand the minimum wage was set to at least 40% above what any single person on benefits could claim, to make sure people see it as worthwhile.

No idea who's funding this though!
 
Sk84goal

Sk84goal

Well-Known Forumite
db said:
surely that's a bit counter-productive? give everyone money, then tax it off them again.. wouldn't it be easier to, i dunno, just not give it to them in the first place? :?:
Click to expand...

Hi , At first glance it does seem a bit daft doesn't it!

But lets look at the current situation :-

First you need to decide who gets benefits.
Then you need to handle the applications for those benefits.
You need to be able to backdate payments because of the time taken to process them.
you need buildings and thousands of staff and all the associated costs to be able to control the benefits.
You need to be able to claw back benefits that have been paid in error.
You need investigators to look for fraud.
You need police and solicitors and courts to prosecute the fraudsters.
You have to continually review the benefits and change the computer systems to be able to cope.
You need to ensure that "it pays to work"

Just think about how much all that costs! All the anger and resentment the benefits system generates, all the people who no longer feel part of society, all the people who feel that the social contract has been broken.

What's important is what you are left with after you have been taxed. With the citizens payment you are always better off working.

Its easier, fairer and (depending on the rates set) cheaper than the current system.
 
A

andy w

Well-Known Forumite
Sk84goal said:
Hi , At first glance it does seem a bit daft doesn't it!

But lets look at the current situation :-

First you need to decide who gets benefits.
Then you need to handle the applications for those benefits.
You need to be able to backdate payments because of the time taken to process them.
you need buildings and thousands of staff and all the associated costs to be able to control the benefits.
You need to be able to claw back benefits that have been paid in error.
You need investigators to look for fraud.
You need police and solicitors and courts to prosecute the fraudsters.
You have to continually review the benefits and change the computer systems to be able to cope.
You need to ensure that "it pays to work"

Just think about how much all that costs! All the anger and resentment the benefits system generates, all the people who no longer feel part of society, all the people who feel that the social contract has been broken.

What's important is what you are left with after you have been taxed. With the citizens payment you are always better off working.

Its easier, fairer and (depending on the rates set) cheaper than the current system.
Click to expand...
I remember Dr Vernon Coleman who used to be a columnist in the Sunday Mirror and used to appear on Central Weekend. He used to shoot from the hip abit but talked a fair bit of sense. I remember him writing it would be cheaper to have dustbins of money on every corner for people to help themselves rather than pay for all the administration of means tested benefits.
 
Sk84goal

Sk84goal

Well-Known Forumite
andy w said:
I remember Dr Vernon Coleman who used to be a columnist in the Sunday Mirror and used to appear on Central Weekend. He used to shoot from the hip abit but talked a fair bit of sense. I remember him writing it would be cheaper to have dustbins of money on every corner for people to help themselves rather than pay for all the administration of means tested benefits.
Click to expand...

Exactly if it costs more to manage and control giving a benefit to a few than it would to give it to everybody, why don't you just give it to everybody, That's the basis of a citizens income!
 
Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt

Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt

Well-Known Forumite
It is quite simple really, if the Government want to encourage people to work then it firstly must ensure that work pays (in other words that employers pay people a living wage) and when it has done this it needs to let people keep more of the money they earn to improve theirs and their families standard of living. The system whereby the money that you earn is taken from you and then you can claim some of it back in the form of things like tax credits is ridiculous, just let people keep more of their own money that way people will have an incentive to work and get on. The Government shouldn't be in the business of subsidising low paid work through the benefit system, just take more low paid people out of tax completely - also stop paying people to have more than 2 children, if you want more than 2 children, pay for them yourself.
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Gotta say I agree with the above, too many people nowadays see not working as a better alternative to working a 40 hour week for just a few quid more - and who can blame them? If we all need a set amount to live then give everyone that, and fund it through savings on admin and taxation on the wages people do earn (I guess you could now tax from the first quid, if you have already got your living costs?). I would however make this a set amount for all, no stupid sliding scales to administer like minimum wage. If it costs x for a person to rent a flat and eat some food then x is what everyone gets regardless of age. Make it automatically paid through your wages, and if you don't work you register with HMRC as your employer and get just the benefits bit.

I would be interested to learn what the admin costs of the welfare state are though, I hear people saying its as much as they dish out but would like a proper number. If the cost really isn't much difference from just dishing it all out then go for it, bearing in mind the increased number of unemployed generated when sacking the civil servants.

I'd be a ****load tighter on immigration though!
 
peggy

peggy

Well-Known Forumite
Once upon a time Girl meets Boy. Boy and Girl decided to save for a house. Boy and Girl move in. Boy proposes, Girl shouts yey you took your bloomin time!! Boy and Girl save for wedding. Girl gets broody, Boy decides some serious saving needed. Boy and girl work there socks off, promtions mean baby 1 followed closely by baby 2, more saving new house and then baby 3. Girl wants 1 more baby but both decide the pennies wont stretch that far. Girl gets a grip, then BOOM Girl gets sick, has time off work. Girl has to go to hospital, nice doctor tells Girl she is not just sick.... but proper sick. Boy asks how long will it take for Girl to get better, doc tells Boy, Girl wont get better...ever, wont go back to work. Boy and Girl have a home they saved and planned for children they worked there socks off for. Boy says dont worry I'll work harder get another promotion it will be ok. Government say if you do we'l take your child benefit.
Girl reflects on life, thinks back to employment days and remembers a client who told Girl that he didnt have to work because people like her paid his wages. Another with 5 children who never worked and yet had foreign holidays and flat screen tv's and sky movies...luxeries. Girl remembers resenting those who blatently abused the welfare system and strongly felt a welfare reform was needed. Girl is now reliant on that system, Girl wonders how she will be judged by those who, like her, were quick to judge. worries daily as to how the welfare reform will effect her.
So much for playing life by the rules.
The end.
ps please be gentle with the backlash, girl is touchy after a bout of man flu.
 
A

andy w

Well-Known Forumite
Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt said:
It is quite simple really, if the Government want to encourage people to work then it firstly must ensure that work pays (in other words that employers pay people a living wage) and when it has done this it needs to let people keep more of the money they earn to improve theirs and their families standard of living. The system whereby the money that you earn is taken from you and then you can claim some of it back in the form of things like tax credits is ridiculous, just let people keep more of their own money that way people will have an incentive to work and get on. The Government shouldn't be in the business of subsidising low paid work through the benefit system, just take more low paid people out of tax completely - also stop paying people to have more than 2 children, if you want more than 2 children, pay for them yourself.
Click to expand...
This happened to me, back when the recession was at it's worst I was on short time for a year ( I count my blessings that I kept my job when many around me lost theirs) and for the following year we received £360 amonth in tax credits. As things improved we moved back on to full hours and worked overtime, this had the effect of stopping our tax credits.
Tax credits are double edged, on one hand we were very grateful to have the money at a time when we were struggling but the way credits are withdrawn and also paying income tax and N.I. I've worked out by working over and earning an additional £200 a week I have paid £62 in tax and lost £80 a week in tax credits, so for doing all those additional hours I am about £58 better off which is only 30% of the gross,
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Any idea what the costs of administering JSA are though? Also what the total figure is, 0.7% is obviously small fry but when its from a pot of tens of billions its suddenly not that small.
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
I suspect all of them, depending on demoninations used.

I'm wondering about that diagram above, I remember seeing that the EU costs about 10bn a year so that means JSA costs us 7bn a year? And I assume thats just in payments, not in admin costs? 3m unemployed mean they get on average £2k each or so a year. But of course that is just JSA, what about housing benefit and tax credits etc?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top