Labour Benefits System 'discouraged' Work, Ifs Says

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7564004/Labour-benefits-system-discouraged-work-IFS-says.html

For millions of people it has made more financial sense to stay at home and claim benefits than go out and earn a salary, according to an in-depth analysis of the winners and losers from Labour's tax and benefits system.

Gordon Brown, as Chancellor delivering his second budget in 1998, said: "In the new Britain, for millions more people, we will make work pay, " a phrase he repeatedly used throughout the next decade.

However, in an indictment of Gordon Brown's main achievement, the tax credit system, the economic think tank said: "Labour’s reforms have slightly weakened the incentive to work."

The IFS analysed how different groups have won or lost under complex changes to the tax and benefits system since 1997.

The average couple with children who stay at home and do not work is £3,258 a year richer on average than back in 1997, because of changes to the benefits system. However, working couples – with either one or both spouses working, with or without children – have lost out under the changes.

A couple where both work, without children, is now £2,057 a year worse off than back in 1997. A couple where both work and they have children, is now £1,585 a year worse off.

James Browne, one of the authors of the report, said: "These sort of people have not benefited from Labour's generosity. They tend to earn too much to benefit from tax credits, but they have lost out from the increases in National Insurance and income tax."

Overcomplicating the system to fool the people?

Still at least we've got the money to pay for all this.

Do the numbers here stack up as being accurate?

[SHERWICK]

http://www.telegraph...k-IFS-says.html

Overcomplicating the system to fool the people?

Still at least we've got the money to pay for all this.

Do the numbers here stack up as being accurate?

So, basically if you DON'T work you've gained and if you DO work you've lost out.

Why am I not surprised?

Typical Labour.

[helenreed]

Big problem now is that even if you want to work, there are no jobs. At least not for the forseeable future.

[Stars]

True,predictable, but incomplete

When the Telegraph runs articles about how passive profits in the real estate market discourages work, then we we will be getting somewhere

[SHERWICK]

Big problem now is that even if you want to work, there are no jobs. At least not for the forseeable future.

I'm sure I saw some ads for McDonalds jobs, amongst others in the last week. Have they all been withdrawn?

[Guest sillybear2]

Is this news? Frank Field told the Labour party this a decade ago, and the pigheaded welfarists fired him for doing so.

[SHERWICK]

True,predictable, but incomplete

When the Telegraph runs articles about how passive profits in the real estate market discourages work, then we we will be getting somewhere

Well, if you're going to go down that line, how about how passive profits by entrepreneurs when they sell their businesses discourages future work by them.

[SHERWICK]

I'm sure I saw some ads for McDonalds jobs, amongst others in the last week. Have they all been withdrawn?

Phew! Just checked and there are thousands of jobs advertised on the Guardian's website! http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/

What a relief. For a moment you had me very worried there that there were no jobs in the UK!

[Guest sillybear2]

So, basically if you DON'T work you've gained and if you DO work you've lost out.

Why am I not surprised?

Typical Labour.

Typical socialists thinking there's a free lunch, the government has no money of it's own, it's a zero-sum game. If you're buying the welfare vote where else can the money come from?

Labour are the party of public sector workers and scroungers, for their chosen people to gain everyone else has to lose out. Why has it taken 13 years for people to twig that?

Edited April 8, 2010 by sillybear2

[europbaron]

Typical socialists thinking there's a free lunch, the government has no money of it's own, it's a zero-sum game. If you're buying the welfare vote where else can the money come from?

Labour are the party of public sector workers and scroungers, for their chosen people to gain everyone else has to lose out. Why has it taken 13 years for people to twig that?

Society after a decade of Labour, rather than benefits, made me not want to work.

[Guest sillybear2]

Society after a decade of Labour, rather than benefits, made me not want to work.

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." -- Thomas Jefferson

Government spending is now 54% of GDP, draw your own conclusions.

[tomwatkins]

Society after a decade of Labour, rather than benefits, made me not want to work.

Just worked out what you were saying. This is the sort of English, up with which, I will not put.

[Stars]

Well, if you're going to go down that line, how about how passive profits by entrepreneurs when they sell their businesses discourages future work by them.

Not the same as it doesn't pile on systemic costs on to others like the real estate 'market'

The person making the passive profits is not the only one discouraged from working by their effects; costs also rise for others. Real estate land value profits are pretty analogous to a welfare and have more or less the same compounded incentive bluntening affect

Edited April 8, 2010 by Stars

[europbaron]

Just worked out what you were saying. This is the sort of English, up with which, I will not put.

For you, good.

[Guest sillybear2]

Not the same as it doesn't pile on systemic costs on to others like the real estate 'market'

The person making the passive profits is not the only one discouraged from working by their effects; costs also rise for others. Real estate land value profits are pretty analogous to a welfare and have more or less the same compounded incentive bluntening affect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking

Even that's the government fault, the planning system deliberately contrives to produce artificial scarcity, therefore parasitic rent seeking behaviour. Productive labour is f**ked by usury, taxation and rent seeking that spans land, capital and even the interest on the public debt. The parasites have even locked on to CO₂ now, taxing fresh air.

[SHERWICK]

Not the same as it doesn't pile on systemic costs on to others like the real estate 'market'

The person making the passive profits is not the only one discouraged from working by their effects; costs also rise for others. Real estate land value profits are pretty analogous to a welfare and have more or less the same compounded incentive bluntening affect

OK, let's remove the person making the passive profits from the hypothesis: I now propose that higher house prices actually encourage work, unlike welfare which discourages work.

[okaycuckoo]

Is this news? Frank Field told the Labour party this a decade ago, and the pigheaded welfarists fired him for doing so.

I've spoken with couples on their last legs debt-wise who compare their income with what they could get on benefits. They actually do say, "What's the point in working?"

And I've spoken with citizens advice bureau workers who are pissed off that it's so hard to encourage single mums into work.

Everybody gets it. It's not just anomalies highlighted in the right wing press. There is a massive problem - but nobody does anything about it.

[miko]

I'm sure I saw some ads for McDonalds jobs, amongst others in the last week. Have they all been withdrawn?

The artical was talking about familys , do you really think familys can live on those shi- minimum wage jobs.

[dhpcza]

Phew! Just checked and there are thousands of jobs advertised on the Guardian's website! http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/

What a relief. For a moment you had me very worried there that there were no jobs in the UK!

There are jobs about and always will be. However, there are now a lot more unemployed people looking for a smaller amount of jobs, so it means a lot of people are going to be out of work. Stating the obvious, but I just felt like doing it.

[Stars]

OK, let's remove the person making the passive profits from the hypothesis: I now propose that higher house prices actually encourage work, unlike welfare which discourages work.

Only if you consider that higher productive costs encourage work ; but if you do you are in confused minority and must also believe higher taxes encourage work

[miko]

Phew! Just checked and there are thousands of jobs advertised on the Guardian's website! http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/

What a relief. For a moment you had me very worried there that there were no jobs in the UK!

Phew that was BIG of you !!

Now take your little exercise a little bit further .

Give yourself an alias , make out your an average educated person , i don't know 5 or 6 o'levels and if in your alias you are going to be under 40 , 2 A level's , if over 40 no A level's needed , as H. R. department's are quite alright with the fact that a lot of people over that age left school at 16.

Then give yourself a good work record , few job changes over the year's, good experience and a promotion or two. Then start applying for a few of those job's , apply for job's that you think you can do , but have no direct experience in and then come back and tell us the response.

Of course many of the jobs advertised especially in the public sector are already filled , but they have this system of advertising so everyone get's the chance to apply , not the chance to get the job , but just to apply, not sure why think it is something to do with keeping H.R. department's in their own jobs.

GO ON TRY IT !!

[miko]

There are jobs about and always will be. However, there are now a lot more unemployed people looking for a smaller amount of jobs, so it means a lot of people are going to be out of work. Stating the obvious, but I just felt like doing it.

+1 , but you do have to state the obvious to the don't work don't eat faternity , however they still don't understand the situation !!

[SHERWICK]

Phew that was BIG of you !!

Now take your little exercise a little bit further .

Give yourself an alias , make out your an average educated person , i don't know 5 or 6 o'levels and if in your alias you are going to be under 40 , 2 A level's , if over 40 no A level's needed , as H. R. department's are quite alright with the fact that a lot of people over that age left school at 16.

Then give yourself a good work record , few job changes over the year's, good experience and a promotion or two. Then start applying for a few of those job's , apply for job's that you think you can do , but have no direct experience in and then come back and tell us the response.

Of course many of the jobs advertised especially in the public sector are already filled , but they have this system of advertising so everyone get's the chance to apply , not the chance to get the job , but just to apply, not sure why think it is something to do with keeping H.R. department's in their own jobs.

GO ON TRY IT !!

I tried it, (applying for a public sector job advertised in the Guardian) and bizarrely I actually got the job and stayed in int for three years (whilst having a 33% pay rise during that time) !!! I had absolutely no public sector experience or experience in that particular job either!

Anyway, where were we?

[SHERWICK]

The artical was talking about familys , do you really think familys can live on those shi- minimum wage jobs.

So there are minimum wage jobs about, jobs at the top about and jobs in the middle about.

Glad we've established that then.

[SHERWICK]

Only if you consider that higher productive costs encourage work ; but if you do you are in confused minority and must also believe higher taxes encourage work

Do higher house prices not encourage people to work more to afford them, i.e. do higher house prices not encourage higher productivity?