10 Facts About Benefits Britain

[fluffy666]

It isn't semantic games. If company x pays more tax then either its shareholders will get less money, or its staff will or its customers.

For example perhaps Amazon should pay more corporation tax and pay its staff less (or raise its prices or pay less dividends).

However it is not possible for Amazon to pay more tax without hurting someone (maybe someone who should get hurt).

But if we put a tax on the staff, that means that Amazon will have to pay more or (overall) see lower sales, they still pay. And if we taxed dividends, they'd have to pay bigger dividends to keep the share price up, so they still pay. Same argument; we might as well put ALL taxes onto businesses because it would have the same result but be much simpler (for most people).

A counter proposition is that our 'elite' or senior level management class would like us to think that corporations are just untouchable vapour because it absolves them from tax, or blame, or any form of accountability.

[EUBanana]

So when corporation X is fined for ripping off it's customers will those managers be paying the fine out of their own salaries?

Lot's of things are legal fictions- including property rights- but this does not mean they have no impact on reality.

Probably not, the managers will try and pass the cost onto shareholders, or employees, or maybe customers if they can get away with it.

[EUBanana]

But if we put a tax on the staff, that means that Amazon will have to pay more or (overall) see lower sales, they still pay. And if we taxed dividends, they'd have to pay bigger dividends to keep the share price up, so they still pay. Same argument; we might as well put ALL taxes onto businesses because it would have the same result but be much simpler (for most people).

A counter proposition is that our 'elite' or senior level management class would like us to think that corporations are just untouchable vapour because it absolves them from tax, or blame, or any form of accountability.

I'm not necessarily arguing against the notion of taxing corporations, merely pointing out that 'corporation tax' is a bit dishonest in that others pay it, and as it's apparently easy to evade it's probably a poor tax to use anyway.

[alexw]

I'm not necessarily arguing against the notion of taxing corporations, merely pointing out that 'corporation tax' is a bit dishonest in that others pay it, and as it's apparently easy to evade it's probably a poor tax to use anyway.

Its easy to evade because the elites want it to be easy to evade. Not because it's hard to properly tax global corporations.

Here's a simple fix for the UK - unitary taxation. Add together the percentage of a global corporations sales, assets, and payroll that occur in the UK and divide by 3. That is the percentage of a corporations global profit that is taxable in the UK. So for example if for google that number is 6%, then we tax 6% of google's global profit at whatever rate we choose (the 30-32% rate we had in the 1990's and 2000's sounds perfect to me). We do this for all the global corporations and use the resulting income to get rid of (as much as possible) national insurance taxation.

Problem solved.

It's a simple effect method that is based on physical realities that can't be shifted around on paper.

But it's not happening because the global corporations absolutely loathe the idea.

[Scunnered]

True it can hurt people. I am not an apologist for Amazon, I am just pointing out that if Amazon pays more tax then the money has to come from a real person's pocket.

Does it though? Don't companies like Amazon and Apple and Google have vast cash reserves which they use to fund their future taking-over-the-world activities? Presumably if they paid more tax then the result would be less cash in the bank, without actually impoverishing any individuals.

Of course, there's an argument to be had about the benefits of their future activities, but I suspect that that particular discussion would never come to a conclusion...

[LeeT]

Don't companies like Amazon and Apple and Google have vast cash reserves which they use to fund their future taking-over-the-world activities?

I'd just spotted this one and thought I'd throw it in as a point of interest.

'Apple ended quarter (Q2 2014) with $156 billion in cash.'

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/04/23/notes-of-interest-from-apples-q2-2014-conference-call

[time2sleep]

FWIW I don't have anything against single parents - just those who go into as a career. The fact that single parents in the UK get the most money.

I still don't get this refrain about "career prospects". I had a period of single parenthood, and as you tend to meet people in similar situations as yourself, I got to know other single parents (as well as married parents), mainly through our kids doing activities together.

Of the single parents I met, not one of them was given a free house. You could put your name on the waiting list, but contrary to popular opinion, being a single mum or dad doesn't get you a council house. Your kid is going to be grown up before you have half enough points to be a serious applicant.

I can accept that maybe it's different in different parts of the country, but for the most part - in the cities where housing is in short supply - being a single parent does not get you a house.

From where I was sitting it looked like to get a house you needed to have an alchohol problem at the very least. That didn't make me want to go out and become an alcoholic, nor did it make me things that alcoholics are cunning careerists.

If being a single parent is such a great career move, perhaps you have considered getting yourself sprogged up? After all the opportunity is available to anyone with gonads, either sex.

[winkie]

Being a single parent is no fun...for the parent or the child.......in many cases it means giving up a job to care for a young family, being dependant on charity or continue working and still be dependant on welfare...lose.lose....anyway kids soon grow up....then what?

[EUBanana]

Its easy to evade because the elites want it to be easy to evade. Not because it's hard to properly tax global corporations.

Here's a simple fix for the UK - unitary taxation. Add together the percentage of a global corporations sales, assets, and payroll that occur in the UK and divide by 3. That is the percentage of a corporations global profit that is taxable in the UK. So for example if for google that number is 6%, then we tax 6% of google's global profit at whatever rate we choose (the 30-32% rate we had in the 1990's and 2000's sounds perfect to me). We do this for all the global corporations and use the resulting income to get rid of (as much as possible) national insurance taxation.

Problem solved.

It's a simple effect method that is based on physical realities that can't be shifted around on paper.

But it's not happening because the global corporations absolutely loathe the idea.

Google's "global profit" is largely out of the reach of the UK exchequer. This is exactly my point.

The dividends or capital gains of British Google shareholders, on the other hand, IS within the reach of the UK exchequer.

[alexw]

Google's "global profit" is largely out of the reach of the UK exchequer. This is exactly my point.

The dividends or capital gains of British Google shareholders, on the other hand, IS within the reach of the UK exchequer.

Err no. Google's "global profit" IS in reach of the UK exchequer. If it were not in reach then changing to unitary taxation would do nothing to solve the avoidance problem. But then if that's true why do corporations loathe it?

In reality just as taxing capital gains required putting in the correct laws so does taxing corporations.

And just because something is not taxed properly currently, whether that be land or corporations does not mean it cannot be, which is what you appear to be arguing.

[iamnumerate]

I still don't get this refrain about "career prospects". I had a period of single parenthood, and as you tend to meet people in similar situations as yourself, I got to know other single parents (as well as married parents), mainly through our kids doing activities together.

Of the single parents I met, not one of them was given a free house. You could put your name on the waiting list, but contrary to popular opinion, being a single mum or dad doesn't get you a council house. Your kid is going to be grown up before you have half enough points to be a serious applicant.

I can accept that maybe it's different in different parts of the country, but for the most part - in the cities where housing is in short supply - being a single parent does not get you a house.

From where I was sitting it looked like to get a house you needed to have an alchohol problem at the very least. That didn't make me want to go out and become an alcoholic, nor did it make me things that alcoholics are cunning careerists.

If being a single parent is such a great career move, perhaps you have considered getting yourself sprogged up? After all the opportunity is available to anyone with gonads, either sex.

No for the same reason, that I wouldn't steal even if I could away with it. I know plently of people in London who got flats in zone 2 due to being pro single parents.

There have been studies that show throughout the EU there is a very good relationship between the amount of money single parents get and the number of single parents in a country. I don't have time to look them up, also I doubt that anyone would change their mind if they read them.

[iamnumerate]

Being a single parent is no fun...for the parent or the child.......in many cases it means giving up a job to care for a young family, being dependant on charity or continue working and still be dependant on welfare...lose.lose....anyway kids soon grow up....then what?

In many cases it is an alternative to a job. I have an in law who became a single mum twice with two different sperm donors.

[byron78]

No for the same reason, that I wouldn't steal even if I could away with it. I know plently of people in London who got flats in zone 2 due to being pro single parents.

There have been studies that show throughout the EU there is a very good relationship between the amount of money single parents get and the number of single parents in a country. I don't have time to look them up, also I doubt that anyone would change their mind if they read them.

I've seen those studies interpreted loads of different ways.

Most think it's got more to do with religion (particularly catholicism) and social standing (religious countries have much lower single parent families - Asian countries tend to hide their single-parent status).

Latvia, that hot bed of high benefit levels for all, is the EU country with the highest single-parent percentage rate btw.

Edited June 21, 2014 by byron78

[EUBanana]

Err no. Google's "global profit" IS in reach of the UK exchequer. If it were not in reach then changing to unitary taxation would do nothing to solve the avoidance problem. But then if that's true why do corporations loathe it?

In reality just as taxing capital gains required putting in the correct laws so does taxing corporations.

And just because something is not taxed properly currently, whether that be land or corporations does not mean it cannot be, which is what you appear to be arguing.

You're gonna tax em for their business in Vietnam?

Good luck with that...

[iamnumerate]

I've seen those studies interpreted loads of different ways.

Most think it's got more to do with religion (particularly catholicism) and social standing (religious countries have much lower single parent families - Asian countries tend to hide their single-parent status).

Really? Ireland is number two in the Eu - I thought the catholic church had a quite a lot of power in Ireland.

[byron78]

Really? Ireland is number two in the Eu - I thought the catholic church had a quite a lot of power in Ireland.

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I meant globally.

It's not very easy to work out anything much from any of the data in my opinion and I'm certainly not suggesting I think there's a link to religion myself. I certainly don't think it's benefits though and social acceptance of single-parenthood does seem to play a major role.

America has the highest instance of it in the world. It's not comfortable there if you're a single-parent benefit wise but it's certainly not frowned upon to bring up kids alone.

I don't know anyone personally who has had kids for benefits but I do know women who have been able to leave deeply abusive relationships as a result of a system being in place allowing them to leave (my own mother included).

I suspect some young women may well do it as a lifestyle choice, particularly in areas where there really aren't any other options in terms of career or educational progression.

Edited June 21, 2014 by byron78

[iamnumerate]

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I meant globally.

It's not very easy to work out anything much from any of the data in my opinion and I'm certainly not suggesting I think there's a link to religion myself. I certainly don't think it's benefits though and social acceptance of single-parenthood does seem to play a major role.

America has the highest instance of it in the world. It's not comfortable there if you're a single-parent benefit wise but it's certainly not frowned upon to bring up kids alone.

I don't know anyone personally who has had kids for benefits but I do know women who have been able to leave deeply abusive relationships as a result of a system being in place allowing them to leave (my own mother included).

I suspect some young women may well do it as a lifestyle choice, particularly in areas where there really aren't any other options in terms of career or educational progression.

I wouldn't want a system which means that people have to stay in abusive relationships (although I question if Spanish women are unable to leave them).

The problem of course here is that people do an Abu Hamza - she tells the council he is hitting her, she gets a house and then surprise surpise they are back together here.

Why would should do is put them in hostels - then there is no "benefit " to being a pro single mum. Although in the Abu Hamza case she should have got a council house a long way for London so she could be "safe" from him!

[byron78]

I wouldn't want a system which means that people have to stay in abusive relationships (although I question if Spanish women are unable to leave them).

The problem of course here is that people do an Abu Hamza - she tells the council he is hitting her, she gets a house and then surprise surpise they are back together here.

Why would should do is put them in hostels - then there is no "benefit " to being a pro single mum. Although in the Abu Hamza case she should have got a council house a long way for London so she could be "safe" from him!

In my area pensioners are actually in a higher band than single-mums so occupy the highest proportion of council housing.

A lot of mums and kids also do end up in hostels when they first leave a relationship (basically emergency housing). They tend to be moved on when they can because these are also used for the homeless or ex-prisoners. A fair few of those ex-prisoners are on the sex offenders register so most single-mums get out ASAP. It's usually private rentals or shared housing as the council waiting list is many many years long unless you're over 65 or an exceptional case.

[time2sleep]

In many cases it is an alternative to a job. I have an in law who became a single mum twice with two different sperm donors.

Wow. You are completely immune to the statistics and determined to stick to your personal anecdotes, aren't you? HALF of single parents had children within marriage. Of the remaining half I don't have a statistic for how many were in stable relationships when the kids were born, but it is definitely more than zero, which indicates that A MAJORITY OF SINGLE PARENTS WERE NOT SINGLE PARENTS WHEN THEY HAD THEIR CHILDREN.

60% of all single parents are in work, rising to 71% when their children are 11-15 years old.

No apologies for the caps lock. You seem to require it.

[time2sleep]

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I meant globally.

It's not very easy to work out anything much from any of the data in my opinion and I'm certainly not suggesting I think there's a link to religion myself. I certainly don't think it's benefits though and social acceptance of single-parenthood does seem to play a major role.

America has the highest instance of it in the world. It's not comfortable there if you're a single-parent benefit wise but it's certainly not frowned upon to bring up kids alone.

I don't know anyone personally who has had kids for benefits but I do know women who have been able to leave deeply abusive relationships as a result of a system being in place allowing them to leave (my own mother included).

I suspect some young women may well do it as a lifestyle choice, particularly in areas where there really aren't any other options in terms of career or educational progression.

Good points.

[time2sleep]

Really? Ireland is number two in the Eu - I thought the catholic church had a quite a lot of power in Ireland.

Ireland is a special case in some ways. Termination of pregnancy in Eire is illegal unless it is performed to save the life of the mother. It is also forbidden by the Catholic church, so culturally as well as legally there are a lot of reasosn why an unwanted pregnancy in Ireland is more liekly to go to term.

It is not surprising then that the proportion of lone parent families is above the EU average.

You link the figures to benefits without thinking about other possible explanations.

Correlation does not prove causation, so even if your association between high benefits and high rates of single parenthood was correct it would still not prove that the first causes or even encourages the second. Byron78's posts cast doubt on your assertion in any case, especially his observation about the US situation - it is hardly a country which makes it easy to survive for anyone without work, it is hardly a land where the streets are paved with benefits cheques, yet it has a high rate of single parent families.

But... you have almost impenetrable armour against reasoned argument, so I don't expect to make one chink in your prejudice. I guess I've said my piece on this thread.

[time2sleep]

Ireland is a special case in some ways. Termination of pregnancy in Eire is illegal unless it is performed to save the life of the mother. It is also forbidden by the Catholic church, so culturally as well as legally there are a lot of reasosn why an unwanted pregnancy in Ireland is more liekly to go to term.

I'm going to correct myself for using the phrase "unwanted" prgenancy, because its far too black and white, and it doesn't do justice to the complexities of the situation. I'm sure there are lots of pregnancies which are neither simply "wanted" nor "unwanted", especially if unplanned. People are understandably ambivalent about a life-changing situation.

[durhamborn]

Wow. You are completely immune to the statistics and determined to stick to your personal anecdotes, aren't you? HALF of single parents had children within marriage. Of the remaining half I don't have a statistic for how many were in stable relationships when the kids were born, but it is definitely more than zero, which indicates that A MAJORITY OF SINGLE PARENTS WERE NOT SINGLE PARENTS WHEN THEY HAD THEIR CHILDREN.

How many of those single parents would have worked harder at their relationship and got over problems if the benefits system wasnt there to fall back on?

60% of all single parents are in work, rising to 71% when their children are 11-15 years old.

Well over 50% of those single parents income in work is from benefits.On the estate iv worked on out of 189 "single parents" over 100 werent single.Indeed 7 had partners who worked on the oil rigs earning £60k a year.The "single parents" were defrauding the taxpayer of over £100k a year between the 7.The fraud rate for tax credits on the estate looked like around 40%+ and ran into £700,000 a year.Thats simply on tax credits.DLA was also heavily used.14 of the "single parents" rented houses owned by their partners and paid for by HB.

No apologies for the caps lock. You seem to require it.

Edited June 22, 2014 by durhamborn

[alexw]

Ireland is a special case in some ways. Termination of pregnancy in Eire is illegal unless it is performed to save the life of the mother. It is also forbidden by the Catholic church, so culturally as well as legally there are a lot of reasosn why an unwanted pregnancy in Ireland is more liekly to go to term.

It is not surprising then that the proportion of lone parent families is above the EU average.

You link the figures to benefits without thinking about other possible explanations.

Correlation does not prove causation, so even if your association between high benefits and high rates of single parenthood was correct it would still not prove that the first causes or even encourages the second. Byron78's posts cast doubt on your assertion in any case, especially his observation about the US situation - it is hardly a country which makes it easy to survive for anyone without work, it is hardly a land where the streets are paved with benefits cheques, yet it has a high rate of single parent families.

But... you have almost impenetrable armour against reasoned argument, so I don't expect to make one chink in your prejudice. I guess I've said my piece on this thread.

+1

For the US from what I gather the major cause of single parenthood is the break-up of relationships, and the main cause of that is the poverty these families live in. It causes all sorts of social stresses and behaviours that strongly disfavour stable family units. It is why for example, 72% of all black children are raised in single parent households.

[iamnumerate]

Ireland is a special case in some ways. Termination of pregnancy in Eire is illegal unless it is performed to save the life of the mother. It is also forbidden by the Catholic church, so culturally as well as legally there are a lot of reasosn why an unwanted pregnancy in Ireland is more liekly to go to term.

It is not surprising then that the proportion of lone parent families is above the EU average.

You link the figures to benefits without thinking about other possible explanations.

Correlation does not prove causation, so even if your association between high benefits and high rates of single parenthood was correct it would still not prove that the first causes or even encourages the second. Byron78's posts cast doubt on your assertion in any case, especially his observation about the US situation - it is hardly a country which makes it easy to survive for anyone without work, it is hardly a land where the streets are paved with benefits cheques, yet it has a high rate of single parent families.

But... you have almost impenetrable armour against reasoned argument, so I don't expect to make one chink in your prejudice. I guess I've said my piece on this thread.

Insults are never a good arguement. BTW do you understand the word prejudice?

From google

"preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience."

My opinion is based on my experience and books like the welfare state we are in.

However if the evidence showed me to be wrong I would admit it. So lets cut the amount pro single parents receive to the Spanish level and if in 20 years we have the same number I will happily admit that I was wrong. (After all they don't starve in Spain).

Sorry I don't have time to answer the points about the US. On the subject of Ireland it is not a special case. Portugal also had abortion illegal until recently but had less single parents (I wonder why two catholic countries with similar laws on abortion has very different number of single parents?)

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

This talks about the number of single parents in Portugal in 2006

http://www.thewelfarestatewerein.com/parenting/2006/09/britain-has-the-highest-proportion-of-single-mothers-in-the-european-union-and-surprise-surpise-one-of-the-highest-rates-of-benefits-for-single-mothers.php

(Sadly the sunday times article mentioned is no longer avaliable).

Edited June 22, 2014 by iamnumerate