More discussion
309350
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 5 Apr 13 at 17:00
|
I think Bromp the fairest thing to say is that while many people qualify for benefits, there are those who very much deserve them and those that do not, but we have not yet invented a system that can take that into account. As it is we have checklists and so long as you meet a certain criteria on paper, you get them.
You can find stories of people who most people would feel for and others can find stories that show human beings at their worst. One does not cancel the other out, they exist as stand alone cases. Personally I often read stories of people who I think should get far more than they do, but in effect those who take from the system who do not need to are stealing that money from the pockets of those in real need - that is why I gave up working tax credits even though I technically qualify as I can get by without, so I cannot morally justify taking them.
|
|
If you qualify for tax credits I would take it For.I don't know if you have any children but any extra would help.That might give you more than thirty five pounds a week for food to live on.
|
|
It's the challenge of doing it that appeals!
|
>>If you qualify for tax credits I would take it For <<
If we all took things just because we can the world would be a very selfish place, the excuse that the state says you are entitled does not absolve you from the moral obligation to do what you know to be right and I know that taking money that I do not NEED is immoral, not least because I am clearly taking money away from someone else who does need it.
But as Roger says, I get a kick out of financial prudence having been down to my last £10 in recent years and much like diets, if you want to maintain good practice it has to become a lifestyle rather than a temporary fix.
|
>> But as Roger says, I get a kick out of financial prudence
Sounds like great fun, each to their own...
;-)
|
|
Universal Credit is the start of customising benefits to the individual - they will be paid in advance all the benefit entitlements for the month. This means that recipients will have to budget everything they get - this means they'll have to be responsible enough not to spend their Housing Benefit (for example) - will lead to interesting times. I happen to think that bit of it a good idea. I have to do it.
|
>>, I get a kick out of financial prudence
I get that, especially with the analogy of diets.
However, one does not have an option to pick and choose which duties one pays. You can't like or dislike VAT, Income Tax, Stamp Duty, NI Contributions or anything else. One has to pay in accordance to the letter of the law, however sensible or ridiculous that is.
By the same logic I believe that you should take every payment or benefit to which you are legally entitled. When establishing a policy, the Government should account for the full cost of that policy, not rely on you subsidising them by not taking the full amount.
After all, if you do that the policy makers receive the full publicity/marketing benefit but are not suffering or accounting for the total cost.
IMO, for once humble, you should take EVERYTHING to which you are entitled and then use your standards and morality on how you spend it - be that a sports car or a charity donation or anything else you feel appropriate.
Whilst you should clearly not try for more than you are entitled to, I believe you deserve no less than what you are entitled to, and should take it.
It is not unlike people who work more hours than they are paid for. I do not see that as a good, virtuous or favourable thing, it is subsidising the bad decisions or accounting of the management. In the long term it is harmful.
Within reason, of course.
|
>> Within reason, of course.
The trouble is there should be no "universal" benefits. Each one, no matter what it is, should be means tested or justified/verified in some other way. I got child allowance, (or my wife did) and childrens tax credits even tho, as a higher rate tax payer, I didn't need them.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 6 Apr 13 at 00:12
|
>>
>>
>> The trouble is there should be no "universal" benefits. Each one, no matter what it
>> is, should be means tested or justified/verified in some other way. I got child allowance,
>> (or my wife did) and childrens tax credits even tho, as a higher rate tax
>> payer, I didn't need them.
>>
Even the means testing cost more than the universal benefit?
|
>>
>> Even the means testing cost more than the universal benefit?
>>
Why should it? Income tax and tax credits are means tested, you pay or receive according to your income - which the treasury has on record. It's simple enough to stop certain benefits to any person or household with an income above a certain level. The stuff about "Not being worth it because it would cost more than it would save" is a myth trotted out by those who oppose any type of benefit reform - other than giving people more and more money, of course.
|
>> >>
>> >> Even the means testing cost more than the universal benefit?
>> >>
>>
>> Why should it? Income tax and tax credits are means tested, you pay or receive
>> according to your income - which the treasury has on record. It's simple enough to
>> stop certain benefits to any person or household with an income above a certain level.
>> The stuff about "Not being worth it because it would cost more than it would
>> save" is a myth trotted out by those who oppose any type of benefit reform
>> - other than giving people more and more money, of course.
>>
Some do yes. The winter fuel allowance being one. There was a do about giving them to ex-pats as it's generally warmer in places like spain. Working out if they live overseas and for how long was more costly than just giving it to everyone.
|
Working out if they live overseas
>>
Gosh yes, I can see the problem there.
|
|
Well I'm not sure hmrc keep records of those that winter in the costas.
|
>> Why should it? Income tax and tax credits are means tested, you pay or receive
>> according to your income - which the treasury has on record.
Err except it's not that simple. If people just have a say a pension or two then it would be. In practice real people's lives are more complicated. Capital as well as income come into the equation. Income from trusts, income form abroad, gifts from family. And of course if the rules are just then the way they apply has to be different for the disabled, age might make a difference too.
The law for current means tested benefits is incredibly complicated. Not because people wh opose benefit reform want it so but because peoples lives and circumstances are actually incredibly complicated.
|
|
It's not simple, but if you spell out the income limits above which you cannot claim most people will be honest/afraid of getting caught and give truthful accounts of their circumstances. The fact that you would also have a fraud investigation team would deter many casual chancers from sinning and would actually catch many of those who do falsify claims. That's how it works with self assessed tax, you'll never have the perfect system and some will always find a way to cheat the system but you can get a lot better than we now have.
|
The fact is the left wingers are afraid that Means Testing will mean that those no longer in receipt of benefits will no longer support them.
And logically, those who are MT'd not to have benefits are - by definition - those whose taxes pay for the Benefits System.
In reality Universal Benefits means bribing the middle classes with their own money. If they did not receive benefits, their taxes would be lower.
Anyone looking at the country's economics will realise that the current system is unaffordable..a 15% cut in spending needed to balance the budget# either means large scale benefit , pension and NHS cuts or a reduction in entitlement.
Unsurprisingly, no politician will admit it.
# £100 out of c £750 billion spend.
Last edited by: madf on Fri 5 Apr 13 at 21:04
|
>> Anyone looking at the country's economics will realise that the current system is unaffordable..a 15%
>> cut in spending needed to balance the budget# either means large scale benefit , pension
>> and NHS cuts or a reduction in entitlement.
>>
>>
>> Unsurprisingly, no politician will admit it.
>>
>> # £100 out of c £750 billion spend.
Or removing the Trident programme. Or an increase in taxes or stimulation of the economy so the take from current tax rates fills the gap. Or some rational mix of those options.
|
>> Or removing the Trident programme. Or an increase in taxes or stimulation of the economy
To stimulate the economy you need to borrow money. Thats what got us here.
|
>> Or removing the Trident programme. Or an increase in taxes or stimulation of the economy
>> so the take from current tax rates fills the gap. Or some rational mix of
>> those options.
Tax increases and stimulating the economy are thought to be incompatible.
If you earned £650 a week and you were spending £750, you'd reduce your outgoings, not carry on and hope for the best.
Cancelling HS2 would be a good start
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 6 Apr 13 at 00:13
|
|
You know where I'm going - EU millions, overseas aid millions; there's a start. ;-)
|
>>
>> Or removing the Trident programme. Or an increase in taxes or stimulation of the economy
>> so the take from current tax rates fills the gap. Or some rational mix of
>> those options.
>>
The entire Defence Budget is £45B.
Most of the Trident money is spent capital.. Save £5 billion a year.
Raise taxes? VAT to 25%.. 10p on income tax?
That will not stimulate the economy..
Stimulate the economy? Fund it by cutting spending elsewhere. Or borrow lots more.?
(Look at Japan for what can happen when a Government spends 20 years stimulating through borrowing and achieves what ? SFA.)
See France and Hollande for how not to do it - raise taxes , not cut spending and thieving lying tax avoiding Ministers. Result: disaster.. Rather like Brown/Balls.
|
|
How much of the current shortfall is due to the loss of revenue in recession caused by the banking crash? How much to the money expended on supporting incompetent and criminal private industry: the banks and other gamblers? The tax payer will never see that money again, but the non-taxpayers who collected their bonuses have enough to live on from the interest on ill-gotten gains.
|
>>How much of the current shortfall is due to the loss of revenue in recession caused by the banking crash?
The shortfall is essentially down to Government living the same way its people were;
Believing that revenue streams/wages would continue for ever.
Believing that paying interest only was always going to be ok
Believing that because credit was available it should be taken
Believing that there would never be need to call in and/or pay off loans
Believing that living beyond your means based on borrowing was never going to blow up in your face
etc. etc.
But people seem to forget that whatever the failings of the government, and goodness knows there were many, the people had the same behaviour and the same fault.
If you know someone who borrows nothing and only buys what they can afford, then whilst they may be finding life a bit more difficult, I'd bet you that they're not in severe difficulties.
It is much the same with Governments.
However, someone who lives within their means and never stretches will also be unlikely to have achieved out of the ordinary success or lifestyle, or remarkable growth in wealth.
As it is with Governments.
Mind you, they'll never have gone bankrupt either.
As it is with Governments.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 6 Apr 13 at 15:40
|
>> >>, I get a kick out of financial prudence
I dont. Its a boring mealy mouthed pass time.
|
>> Its a boring mealy mouthed pass time.
It's much worse than that. It interferes with legitimate drinking, smoking and gourmandizing, not to mention driving thirstier cars than necessary. Better the occasional nasty surprise than the dreary grey eternity of self-restraint that goes with financial prudence.
|
>> >> Its a boring mealy mouthed pass time.
>>
not to mention driving thirstier cars than necessary.
Good point AC, I can hear my V6 calling. :-)
|
>>Its a boring mealy mouthed pass time.<<
No, that is trainspotting :-)
>>It's much worse than that. It interferes with legitimate drinking, smoking and gourmandizing, not to mention driving thirstier cars than necessary. Better the occasional nasty surprise than the dreary grey eternity of self-restraint that goes with financial prudence<<
I dont suffer any of those vices and my Hyundai does 28mpg, which seems incredibly reckless to me :-)
The reason I enjoy it is that firstly, I dont like working more than I dont like living on a low income, so if I am going to be a bit lazy I have to accept the lifestyle.
Secondly, I have a moderate dislike of rampant consumerism - I have seen the hole it has driven people I know into, namely never ending debt - and I like a low stress life.
What also tickles me is that bosses at companies like Tesco wont like it because their ideal customer is the one who buys ready meals at £5 a pop - sure they are making some money out of a 15p can of rice pudding I presume, but it aint alot and I get a warm glow from that.
I get it from my dad, although his comes from growing up in a very poor single parent household, it has still rubbed off on me - Im even now teaching him a thing or two, he often jokes that im so tight their must be some Yorkshire in me somewhere.
|
>>IMO, for once humble, you should take EVERYTHING to which you are entitled and then use your standards and morality on how you spend it - be that a sports car or a charity donation or anything else you feel appropriate.
Whilst you should clearly not try for more than you are entitled to, I believe you deserve no less than what you are entitled to, and should take it.<<
I do understand your point, I used to feel the same way but after Pat berated me for receiving tak credits AND being able to put money into savings I reconsidered my position.
I know the government will likely pee the £1500 a year they are saving down the drain, but I would be the first to preach that benefits go to too many people who dont really need them and I would be a top notch hypocrite if I then took them when I myself didnt need them.
I know principles will always make me poorer in such cases, but I am ok with that.
|
>A change from anecdote and Mail lies/distortion.
As if The Guardian and it's readership are completely impartial. Like every other fishwrap it has it's own political agenda and fans. It's as accurate as a DM article.
The only difference is that other papers don't rely on Civil Service job adverts and offshore tax arrangements to keep them temporarily afloat.
|
>> www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2013/apr/04/living-on-benefits-readers-panel
>>
>> A change from anecdote and Mail lies/distortion.
>>
Guardian readers who are on benefits? Well they are completely unbiased, aren't they?
;-)
|
Hadn't see The Tesco scanners - they just have the automatic check outs around here. Definitely a big plus as far as I am concerned. Always feel a bit concerned when they do a security re-scan though which is about once a year. Did I scan that bottle of wine or not?
Never been told the results of the re-scans so I assume they must have matched. I guess they have some sort of algorithm in the system whereby the more errors you make the more you get re-scanned.
|
|
Do you have to register for the hand scanners?
|
>> Never been told the results of the re-scans so I assume they must have matched.
>> I guess they have some sort of algorithm in the system whereby the more errors
>> you make the more you get re-scanned.
They do, or more accurately Waitrose do. You get picked for rescans more when you are new to the system, and this falls off with no errors found. If you then get found with errors during a random rescan, you get bumped up to more rescans again till you have proven your honesty.
|
|
isnt spreading the wealth good for the economy.. like shuffling the pound notes around..or are we just robbing peter to pay paul?
|
|
Never been re-scanned in any store I've used. Must have an honest face or live in an honest area !
|
if they feel the need to scan you... you aint in an honest area.. and if you go to the post office to get your book stamped .. and drag a bit off the tax payers, your basically a wrong un
|
|
Oh you will - Probably Christmas Eve with two full trolley loads!
|
|
Do people still go to supermarkets? How quaint.
|
|
In my experience the scan is a sample only - usually 6 or 7 items. Never had to completely offload for one.
|
Benefit Changes - Real Life Stories - Bromptonaut
