Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
kjw

Workers 'could Be Forced To Pay £5 A Week' To Get Benefits

Recommended Posts

Workers could be forced to pay at least £5 a week into a personal “welfare account” to get higher benefits if they lose their job, under a plan being considered by George Osborne.


In a report published today, the Policy Exchange think-tank proposes a shake-up of the welfare system to strengthen its original “contributory principle”, under which the amount people receive in benefits is linked to how much people have paid in.

Allies say the Chancellor is keen to extend “personal responsibility” in the welfare system. The report is being studied by the Downing Street Policy Unit and such reforms could be signalled in the Conservatives’ general election manifesto.

The Policy Exchange plan would set up a “compulsory collective insurance scheme”, into which everyone working more than 20 hours a week would pay £5 a week.

It would be run by private-sector providers such as insurers and fund managers, but guaranteed by the Government.

The think-tank calculates that the shake-up would save the Government £2.5bn a year as people became more self-reliant [more at link...]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/workers-could-be-forced-to-pay-5-a-week-to-get-benefits-9794571.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now it's going to be

Income Tax

National Insurance

Welfare Insurance.

At least taxes are going to go down even with the cost of administrating the new tax :unsure:

It sounds very like the SERPS scam sold and offloaded as being better off with private providers but give it a few years and it'll be shown to be just another dodgy financial sector/government scam. At least people had a choice whether or not to go private with SERPS.

For sure if you ever have to make a claim there'll be endless hoops to jump through - that's if they haven't absconded with the money or gone bust or something else like the private pension sector.


http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Earnings-Related_Pension_Scheme

Contracting out

When the scheme was established, employers with final-salary pension schemes could choose to contract-out of SERPS, provided they gave scheme members a Guaranteed Minimum Pension. In return for opting out of SERPS the employer would pay reduced National Insurance contributions.

In 1988 members of money purchase pension schemes were allowed to opt-out for the first time. Instead of providing a Guaranteed Minimum Pension these schemes had to pay the saving in National Insurance contributions into the pension arrangement. To encourage the take-up of this arrangement the government made an extra incentive payment into each pension scheme where somebody contracted out using this route.

There's a saying about repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Workers could be forced to pay at least £5 a week into a personal “welfare account” to get higher benefits if they lose their job, under a plan being considered by George Osborne.

In a report published today, the Policy Exchange think-tank proposes a shake-up of the welfare system to strengthen its original “contributory principle”, under which the amount people receive in benefits is linked to how much people have paid in.

Allies say the Chancellor is keen to extend “personal responsibility” in the welfare system. The report is being studied by the Downing Street Policy Unit and such reforms could be signalled in the Conservatives’ general election manifesto.

The Policy Exchange plan would set up a “compulsory collective insurance scheme”, into which everyone working more than 20 hours a week would pay £5 a week.

It would be run by private-sector providers such as insurers and fund managers, but guaranteed by the Government.

The think-tank calculates that the shake-up would save the Government £2.5bn a year as people became more self-reliant [more at link...]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/workers-could-be-forced-to-pay-5-a-week-to-get-benefits-9794571.html

Run by the private-sector, who'll be creaming big profits off it. Why not just make it a government scheme? Would the government really find it difficult to run it? I mean it could run a little like Norway's sovereign wealth fund, well sort of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a great corporate welfare scheme. HMRC extracts £250 a year from each worker's paycheque so they can't dodge the payment. Whitehall civil servants with an eye on their next career move then hand over the cash to City firms in backroom deals. The City firms use this as a float to gamble on the markets for a few years, pocketing lots of fees along the way. When the business cycle turns and unemployment spikes it will transpire that the City firms never factored unexpected events like recessions into their risk calculations and they don't have the cash to make the insurance payouts. The City firms quietly melt away into the background and the taxpayer picks up the unemployment bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this just National Insurance?

Well, you could call it that.

Except, we already have a tax called National Insurance, that doesn't qualify you for welfare benefits if you lose your job (indeed, rather the opposite, in some circumstances it reduces your benefits package). So one might be forgiven for finding it confusing if the same term were used for an insurance and an anti-insurance scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy in principal, but only if the government cut NI to compensate. NI is supposed to be "National Insurance"

That was my first thought. Workers already pay (quite a bit) in NI contributions.

The government are thieving ******s. I think NI should be optional. If it was able I'd opt out and make my own provision with unemployment insurance, which is way cheaper, way more generous, and way less hassle.

Edited by EUBanana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a tax rise.

Which will offset the benefits of any tax cuts for many people. Apart from the 1% of course, can't have them being any worse off can we?

I actually fully support the idea of a contributions based system, but not this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'The abolition in 1982 of the Earnings-Related Supplement (ERS) to unemployment benefit, which had been introduced in 1966, left the UK with no element of income support for the unemployed linked to previous earnings.' -how it used to be

re making your own provision for unemployment - NI covers lots of things that WORKERS/employers pay for to support the rest of the population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NI is just used to pay someone else's pension now, a pension that is being drawn earlier and longer than upcoming generations will be able to and will probably not even exist in 20 years.

This extra NI is to help cover the shortfall that NI should be going to, like periods of unemployment.

Already a crappy deal, isn't NI supposed to cover you for retirement and unemployment? What of those that never go unemployed or only for a few weeks in their life? And now after being told the retirement age will move so far ahead you probably will not get it they ask for another £5 to help keep voters sweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask will the bankers be managing this £5 contribution and what will their parasite skimming off the top take be?

So for £260 a year what extra wonderful benefits will I be getting?

Considering we keep seeing reports that some individuals have a mere £20 left at the end of each month is this an attempt to finish them off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was made redundant 7 years ago i can tell you a serial dole scrounger is treated far better that someone who as worked saved some money and paided in to the system.

Perhaps the best way would be make dole benefit based on how long you been at work and be very up front about this to the dole scroungers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my first thought. Workers already pay (quite a bit) in NI contributions.

The government are thieving ******s. I think NI should be optional. If it was able I'd opt out and make my own provision with unemployment insurance, which is way cheaper, way more generous, and way less hassle.

Whilst I agree National Insurance needs to be a proper contributary benefit, private unemployment insurance, PPI and all that lark is a bloody minefield and discriminates on the basis of age and pre-existing conditions iirc.

Some sort of social insurance might work though. It's worth noting that the benefits system of most other developed countries in Europe are more generous, especially when it comes to contributary benefits. For e.g. I think Denmark pays about 70% of the salary for a maximum of two years after being made redundant. May be 60%, can't remember (on phone)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'The abolition in 1982 of the Earnings-Related Supplement (ERS) to unemployment benefit, which had been introduced in 1966, left the UK with no element of income support for the unemployed linked to previous earnings.' -how it used to be

re making your own provision for unemployment - NI covers lots of things that WORKERS/employers pay for to support the rest of the population.

So the Wilson Labour government introduced a form of contributions based system, the Thatcher Conservative government abolished it, now 30+ years later Tories want to reintroduce it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another reason why i went self employed.£140 a year NI instead of £1800 in my last job on the same money.You dont get S2P or SERPS but thats going anyway.

PAYE is simply robbery.I can claim fuel against my tax for driving to a warehouse 500 yards away from where i used to work and couldnt claim get to work expenses against tax.Now another tax on workers.

How about he increases JSA for anyone whos paid NI for 3 years?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NI is just used to pay someone else's pension now, a pension that is being drawn earlier and longer than upcoming generations will be able to and will probably not even exist in 20 years.

This extra NI is to help cover the shortfall that NI should be going to, like periods of unemployment.

Already a crappy deal, isn't NI supposed to cover you for retirement and unemployment? What of those that never go unemployed or only for a few weeks in their life? And now after being told the retirement age will move so far ahead you probably will not get it they ask for another £5 to help keep voters sweet.

NI just goes into the tax pool...any justification for what it is for, like any other tax, is just a lie to salve the victims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was made redundant 7 years ago i can tell you a serial dole scrounger is treated far better that someone who as worked saved some money and paided in to the system.

Perhaps the best way would be make dole benefit based on how long you been at work and be very up front about this to the dole scroungers

I personally think there should be a base level of benefits that is set low, and then additional benefit should be based on either genuine need (eg the disabled) or some proportion of the tax you have paid over your working life (capped at some level of course).

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   209 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.