Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
bogbrush

Ids On Benefits Trap

Recommended Posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8257673.stm

The means tested benefit is a real nasty trap; well intentioned of course, as the road to Hell is said to be paved.

Without rigorously examining all the details I can't say if this idea sufficiently tackles the problem but it's on the right lines. What can't be right is that it pays less to work for £15k than to stay out of work on benefits.

It won't get anywhere though, far too long term in thinking. The Cons want to cut spending & Lab want to keep you on the tit.

Edited by bogbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8257673.stm

The means tested benefit is a real nasty trap; well intentioned of course, as the road to Hell is said to be paved.

Without rigorously examining all the details I can't say if this idea sufficiently tackles the problem but it's on the right lines. What can't be right is that it pays less to work for £15k than to stay out of work on benefits.

It won't get anywhere though, far too long term in thinking. The Cons want to cut spending & Lab want to keep you on the tit.

I did a little work on this subject. As a married man with two children and under the assumption that I had no house and no savings what would be the salary break even point between working and not working?

The amount of benefits I could claim is £22,219. This assumes a housing benefit of £800 per month which it is for my area. This figure may surprise you, it did me but you can try it yourself at www.entitledto.co.uk

However my teenagers could also claim 1500 per year each as they are plus 16 and at school. My eldest is in university and would be eligible for grants of £4500 including fees as student fees are parental means tested.

So the total benefit I could claim is £28,219.

I would have to earn a salary of £38,109 to reach my work/benefit break even point. (This figure assumes a commuting costs of zero.)

It strikes me that there must be a lot of working people out there who would be better off not working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about the scrounging rent seekers,bankers and tax dodgers, non-doms etc? Any word on them from the Tories? Or is it the usual poor bashing again? Go out and do a shit job so I can put my feet up...

Nothing changes much.

As your name suggests, you are confused. The IDS group (not the Tory party) is on this matter focussed on the horriffic crime perpetrated on low income people whereby the state corralls them into pointless lives on benefit.

It always amuses me when people think that doing this to other people is kind, when of course it is a crime. You could also do with learning to focus on the matter in front of you rather than vomiting out every other thing you can think off to act as chaff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have to earn a salary of £38,109 to reach my work/benefit break even point. (This figure assumes a commuting costs of zero.)

I'm one of the best paid people in a well paid office and I would be better off not working...

ho hum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did a little work on this subject. As a married man with two children and under the assumption that I had no house and no savings what would be the salary break even point between working and not working?

The amount of benefits I could claim is £22,219. This assumes a housing benefit of £800 per month which it is for my area. This figure may surprise you, it did me but you can try it yourself at www.entitledto.co.uk

However my teenagers could also claim 1500 per year each as they are plus 16 and at school. My eldest is in university and would be eligible for grants of £4500 including fees as student fees are parental means tested.

So the total benefit I could claim is £28,219.

I would have to earn a salary of £38,109 to reach my work/benefit break even point. (This figure assumes a commuting costs of zero.)

It strikes me that there must be a lot of working people out there who would be better off not working.

Just tried that. I am entitled to nothing. I have been a taxpayer for 36 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just tried that. I am entitled to nothing. I have been a taxpayer for 36 years.

Let me guess. Did you fail MrPrudence's initial conditions, in particular the no-savings one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did a little work on this subject. As a married man with two children and under the assumption that I had no house and no savings what would be the salary break even point between working and not working?

The amount of benefits I could claim is £22,219. This assumes a housing benefit of £800 per month which it is for my area. This figure may surprise you, it did me but you can try it yourself at www.entitledto.co.uk

However my teenagers could also claim 1500 per year each as they are plus 16 and at school. My eldest is in university and would be eligible for grants of £4500 including fees as student fees are parental means tested.

So the total benefit I could claim is £28,219.

I would have to earn a salary of £38,109 to reach my work/benefit break even point. (This figure assumes a commuting costs of zero.)

It strikes me that there must be a lot of working people out there who would be better off not working.

I'll take your word for it, and it's absurd. It's got nothing to do with blaming poor people to point out that this simply is not a sustainable model for an economy, and no way to trap people from lives of achievement into pointless idleness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did a little work on this subject. As a married man with two children and under the assumption that I had no house and no savings what would be the salary break even point between working and not working?

If you take the logic of HPI, you can come up with some much higher figures.

On budget day 2007, I considered a single pensioner with no pension (only the state guaranteed minimum income) but with an average house, and calculated how much a working person with no assets would have to earn to keep up. Not to close the wealth gap (wealth being the value of the house), but to prevent it growing further with HPI. In doing so, I discounted the pensioner's benefits package: free NHS, "winter fuel", cheap/free travel, etc, and also discounted the working person's costs for commuting/lunch both to zero.

Guess what headline salary that implied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say I liked Ian Duncan Smith before, but on this subject he strikes me as being dedicated and passionate about improving peoples lives. I realised this a few months ago when watching this exchange on Question Time which also speaks volumes about the other main party's commitment to this most important issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXgM1bVZ-Zc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did a little work on this subject. As a married man with two children and under the assumption that I had no house and no savings what would be the salary break even point between working and not working?

The amount of benefits I could claim is £22,219. This assumes a housing benefit of £800 per month which it is for my area. This figure may surprise you, it did me but you can try it yourself at www.entitledto.co.uk

However my teenagers could also claim 1500 per year each as they are plus 16 and at school. My eldest is in university and would be eligible for grants of £4500 including fees as student fees are parental means tested.

So the total benefit I could claim is £28,219.

I would have to earn a salary of £38,109 to reach my work/benefit break even point. (This figure assumes a commuting costs of zero.)

It strikes me that there must be a lot of working people out there who would be better off not working.

Sounds about right. You also have to figure that you'd be saving money on the commute which could easily add on another couple of hundred a month. In my case you would also not be paying back student loans if you weren't working which adds about another £50-100 if you're on a half-decent wage.

Sooooo many anecdotals I could add here, but one that annoys me is that my sister who like me is a teacher. She got herself knocked up, works 16 hours a week and claims LHA/tax credits/council tax benefit/god only knows what else and reckons that she's earning as much as when she was working full time. She gets to spend five days a week with her baby while when my wife goes back to work part-time all her wages will go on child care for our little one and student loan repayments and we'll be no better off despite both having good jobs and working damn hard.

F***ing great, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds about right. You also have to figure that you'd be saving money on the commute which could easily add on another couple of hundred a month. In my case you would also not be paying back student loans if you weren't working which adds about another £50-100 if you're on a half-decent wage.

Plus free dental care, free prescriptions, free eye tests it all adds up.

But despite the tone I am really not having a go at people on benefit. They are doing the best they can in the system they find themselves.

For an employer to create the job to cover the £38,109 I would need; the state would tax that employer £4146.43 for the privilige of employing someone and that figure is due to increase next year.

So we have perverse incentives that produce not surprisingly perverse results. The unemployed find it hard to get back to employment because they have to earn so much to be better off and the employer is heavily taxed for providing that opportunity as such the employer finds it harder to provide that job.

Both factors inevitably lead to long term unemployment particularly amongst workers with famillies.

The solution, well you have to stop taxing employers for an outcome that you wish for i.e. creating jobs and you have to stop taxing the low paid to make it worthwhile to take those jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the government, welfare reform minister Jim Knight said: "Where on earth does Iain Duncan Smith get the billions of pounds for this when David Cameron wants to cut billions in public spending right now?

From the same place your bloated spending comes from, you dolt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't say I liked Ian Duncan Smith before, but on this subject he strikes me as being dedicated and passionate about improving peoples lives. I realised this a few months ago when watching this exchange on Question Time which also speaks volumes about the other main party's commitment to this most important issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXgM1bVZ-Zc

Yes, I tend to share your opinion - which is why I mention Frank Field as well. There are a few people in politics who really do look like they are in it to make things better - they may well be wrong but their intentions appear sincere. They are characterised by saying things which often don't correspond to conventional party lines, and their statements tend to be consistent and never self-contradictory, as if they arise from a consistent set of principles. Just imagine!

It's probably one of the main reasons (added to a lack of presentability and the Toniness factor) why IDS was a pretty unsuccessful party leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's probably one of the main reasons (added to a lack of presentability and the Toniness factor) why IDS was a pretty unsuccessful party leader.

I thought IDS looked better than his image, even if the lack of humour was a bit extreme. But his party was still buried in the ultra-extremist loony-fringe Hague days and wouldn't take a not-the-biggest-ego without further damage to sober them up.

Who knows? IDS five years later might even have survived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought IDS looked better than his image, even if the lack of humour was a bit extreme. But his party was still buried in the ultra-extremist loony-fringe Hague days and wouldn't take a not-the-biggest-ego without further damage to sober them up.

Who knows? IDS five years later might even have survived.

Doubt it, if you look at "call me Dave" it seems everyone is still hooked on looking right, saying the right things and so on (Brown is an aberration in every possible sense of the word).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So a lot of people losing their jobs right now are actually about to be quids in.

Depends on your circumstances.

If you are single and childless, have savings, a working partner, own your house, then no.

If you have children of both sexes, your partner earns nothing, you have no savings and rent then you are better protected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me guess. Did you fail MrPrudence's initial conditions, in particular the no-savings one?

Yep, got savings instead of debt and as we all know in the world of ZanLabour debt is wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll take your word for it, and it's absurd. It's got nothing to do with blaming poor people to point out that this simply is not a sustainable model for an economy, and no way to trap people from lives of achievement into pointless idleness.

Can you tell me who exactly shut down Britains vast manufacturing industries please where most people used to get a job and learn - at least as an apprentice to start!

2009 Service Economy -

Mcdumb & boring jobs / Shelf stacking / insecure part time jobs. (Do they get any paid holiday entitlement?)

- bet they all go "whoopie" and leap out of bed looking forward to the new day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you tell me who exactly shut down Britains vast manufacturing industries please where most people used to get a job and learn - at least as an apprentice to start!

2009 Service Economy -

Mcdumb & boring jobs / Shelf stacking / insecure part time jobs. (Do they get any paid holiday entitlement?)

- bet they all go "whoopie" and leap out of bed looking forward to the new day!

There is an issue with the quality of jobs.

Tax incentives exist for employers to provide part time jobs as opposed to full time ones, they can save a lot of money in employers NI by having two part time posts instead of a full time one.

Only yesterday Brown decided that dads would be entitled to six months paternity leave, three of it paid by the employer. And as far as maternity leave goes even a member of the government has said he wouold never employ a woman.

Every guaranteed employee benefit for a full time position pushes employers into short term contracts.

Perverse incentives again resulting in unwanted outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Parry aka GOD
What about the scrounging rent seekers,bankers and tax dodgers, non-doms etc? Any word on them from the Tories? Or is it the usual poor bashing again? Go out and do a shit job so I can put my feet up...

Nothing changes much.

You are right mind.

I did a sh1t job. Entitled to nothing though.

Atlas just shrugged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just tried that. I am entitled to nothing. I have been a taxpayer for 36 years.

I suggest you give it another go - this time treat it a bit like a 2006/7 mortgage application, and be a little more "creative" - you'll be pleasantly surprised

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suggest you give it another go - this time treat it a bit like a 2006/7 mortgage application, and be a little more "creative" - you'll be pleasantly surprised

You mean do it after I have turned my savings into gold and given them to my brother to look after and acquired some large debts owed to an offshore company not traceable to a family member. Perhaps I could also start acting a bit peculiar and put it down to workspace stress. Maybe have a bit of mental trouble with my gender alignment and stress that I am of mixed european race and have suffered prejudice because of my religion. I think I am getting the hang of this now.

In the land of ZanuLabour lies are truth, fantasy is wisdom and of course debt is wealth. When Gordon the great helmsman wins the election I could leverage my benefits claim to start a BTL portfolio. Soon I would be rich, Rich, RICH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   288 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.