Flick Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Some help me out please, I'm having my usual tory vs labour rant with a communist work colleague, and I mentioned an article that I'm sure was linked from here about 70% or british households being dependant to some degree on state benefits. Cant find it anywhere! I dont think I imagined it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mags Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Some help me out please, I'm having my usual tory vs labour rant with a communist work colleague, and I mentioned an article that I'm sure was linked from here about 70% or british households being dependant to some degree on state benefits. Cant find it anywhere! I dont think I imagined it Unlikely, unless you're including entitlements like tax credits, which aren't benefits in the conventional use of the term I don't think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTMark Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Some help me out please, I'm having my usual tory vs labour rant with a communist work colleague, and I mentioned an article that I'm sure was linked from here about 70% or british households being dependant to some degree on state benefits. Cant find it anywhere! I dont think I imagined it Was it the one which said *something like* "since Labour came to power we now have 7 out of 10 families receiving some kind of benefit" re: tax credits? As opposed to being *dependant* on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surrey cash buyer Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 It's in here: Telegraph 69% in fact. I guess child benefit accounts for a much of this. It's not means tested so anybody with a child 16 or under gets it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeFall Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Or was it the credit action web page? http://www.creditaction.org.uk/debtstats.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frugalista Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 It's in here: Telegraph 69% in fact. I guess child benefit accounts for a much of this. It's not means tested so anybody with a child 16 or under gets it. That would make it a pretty uninteresting fact. Why not just say 31% of households do not have any children. frugalista Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashConnoisseur Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 'Buying British votes': http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Stories.a...6B-2E04DE8CD28E Last year 11.7m people claimed a state pension, 2.7m were on incapacity benefits, 400,000 on other sickness or disability-related schemes, 816,000 on the jobseekers' allowance and 761,000 were lone parents not in work and dependent on the state (another 191,000 were not in work but claiming various other benefits). The bottom line is this: a staggering 23m people either work for the state or are dependent on it for their incomes -- 52% of the British electorate of 44m voters; yet even that total does not include those on tax credits, subsidised farmers and other groups partly or wholly dependent on government largesse. According to the most recent household resources survey, 69% of households are now on some kind of welfare benefits. The reality is not quite as grim as these figures suggest, though it is still grim enough. Many pensioners have enough private income to receive only £45 a week from the state, which means that they are not truly dependent on government. So include only those pensioners dependent on welfare for half their income: even then, at least 44% of the electorate are either employed by the state or dependent on state benefits for all or most of their income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashConnoisseur Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 (edited) Why not just say 31% of households do not have any children. [frugalista] Because the true figure is over 70%... 'Statement on the Ofcom Broadcasting Code -- Section Two: Harm and Offence' [PDF]: http://ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/Broadc...at/section2.pdf It should also be noted that while more than 70 per cent of households do not have any children in them,... Edited April 5, 2006 by Jeff Ross Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeless Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 absolute disgrace. I personaly would be embarased to claim anything from the state.I dont want people delving into my personal buisness. I consider this all another form of control over the populance. I think this idea of labours in handing out money to families realy has to stop, there spending vast amounts of money not only giving this but also administering it, as well as other benifits. solution stop paying any of it to anyone but the most needy and then only a minimum amount. and thus you can get rid of the taxes that are causing the need for a lot of these benifits in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frugalista Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Last year 11.7m people claimed a state pension, 2.7m were on incapacity benefits, 400,000 on other sickness or disability-related schemes, 816,000 on the jobseekers' allowance and 761,000 were lone parents not in work and dependent on the state (another 191,000 were not in work but claiming various other benefits). Adding up these figures, I get 16,568,000 people or approximately 27.6% of the UK population of 60m. Where are the other 41.4% (or 24.8 million) people who are supposed to be "on benefits"? Claiming child benefit perhaps? What a bunch of scrounging scum they are --- not. frugalista Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flick Posted April 5, 2006 Author Share Posted April 5, 2006 Was it the one which said *something like* "since Labour came to power we now have 7 out of 10 families receiving some kind of benefit" re: tax credits? As opposed to being *dependant* on... thats the one Unlikely, unless you're including entitlements like tax credits, which aren't benefits in the conventional use of the term I don't think. Why aren't tax credits benefits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Winners and Losers Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Claiming child benefit perhaps? frugalista Yes, having children SO they can claim child benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonewer Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Adding up these figures, I get 16,568,000 people or approximately 27.6% of the UK population of 60m. Where are the other 41.4% (or 24.8 million) people who are supposed to be "on benefits"? Claiming child benefit perhaps? What a bunch of scrounging scum they are --- not. frugalista I think those are public sector employees and those on "credits" of some kind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frugalista Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Why aren't tax credits benefits? Tax credits are income which you do not pay tax on. It is not a benefit in any sense of the word. If you do not earn the income then you cannot benefit from the tax credit. frugalista I think those are public sector employees and those on "credits" of some kind So firemen, doctors, soldiers, refuse collectors, teachers, nurses etc. etc. are "on benefits" now are they since they work for the state? What a load of claptrap. frugalista Yes, having children SO they can claim child benefit. Well, who knows why people have children? Perhaps they are just copying the example set by their own parents? But a household which collects a *non means tested* 17 quid a week to look after a young dependent can hardly be classed as "dependent on welfare benefits" per se can it? frugalista Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flick Posted April 5, 2006 Author Share Posted April 5, 2006 Tax credits are income which you do not pay tax on. It is not a benefit in any sense of the word. If you do not earn the income then you cannot benefit from the tax credit. frugalista http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20...32548_1,00.html The research, based on figures for 2003, took the case of a lone parent who earned the minimum wage of £8,212 and had one 12-year-old child. This single parent would claim benefits of £4,355 in child tax credit and working tax credit. --- I'm not saying thats not neccesary, but I am saying thats a benefit, whichever way you want to phrase it. I know personally of many that sign up to a part time job for 16 hours a week to get the "tax credit" , then jack the job in, knowing the credits safe for 6 months, till the next review. I don't live in Islington. Its a benefit, whichever way you look at it. If 70% of the UK household are in reciept of benefit, why not just tax them a little less in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyingBear Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 (edited) Just another example of Gordon and his donkey Edited April 5, 2006 by BuyingBear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 I know personally of many that sign up to a part time job for 16 hours a week to get the "tax credit" , then jack the job in, knowing the credits safe for 6 months, till the next review. I don't live in Islington. USed to work that way ... doesn't anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyingBear Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 USed to work that way ... doesn't anymore. It looks they don't even need to try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frugalista Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20...32548_1,00.html The research, based on figures for 2003, took the case of a lone parent who earned the minimum wage of £8,212 and had one 12-year-old child. This single parent would claim benefits of £4,355 in child tax credit and working tax credit. If you can get more money from the "tax credit" than you pay in tax, then it is a benefit, as you say. But I understood that you could not. frugalista Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flick Posted April 5, 2006 Author Share Posted April 5, 2006 If you can get more money from the "tax credit" than you pay in tax, then it is a benefit, as you say. But I understood that you could not. frugalista Yes you can. I think maybe Peter Mandelson named it 'Tax Credits' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyingBear Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 (edited) Apparently it's just about good marketing, making sure all the nice middle-class people that voted NuLabour into power fail to realise it's a 'credit' often without any sort of original 'debit'. The word 'credit' of course is highly loaded and builds a sense of entitlement and reciprocity, it's a sham of course. Same goes for the 'benefit fraud' adverts, I was reading an industry rag and apparently they're almost always shown in between programmes with a high number of ABC1 viewers, like Midsummer Murders, Poirot, etc. It's all about making the government appear tough, so "MEW'ing man" (formerly "Mondeo Man") knows he ticked the right box. If they really wanted to impact the real target groups the adverts would be shown in the middle of Trisha... no doubt they show Tax Credit adverts instead. Edited April 5, 2006 by BuyingBear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frugalista Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Yes you can. I think maybe Peter Mandelson named it 'Tax Credits' I stand corrected. frugalista Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flat Bear Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 QUOTE(frugalista @ Apr 5 2006, 08:26 PM) Tax credits are income which you do not pay tax on. It is not a benefit in any sense of the word. If you do not earn the income then you cannot benefit from the tax credit. frugalista One of the guys operating our machines was telling me he could not survive without Gordons handouts and how thoughtful Gordon was of the lower paid. We calculated how much tax he paid and how much he was given back. The balance was still a sizeable amount in taxes. Gordon Brown is taxing people to the hilt and then handing back some of their own money and people believe he is Robin Hood. You couldn't make it up. If you did people wouldn't believe anyone could be so stupid to believe it (but they are) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashConnoisseur Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 I stand corrected. [frugalista] Not for the fist time in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethel Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 If you can get more money from the "tax credit" than you pay in tax, then it is a benefit, as you say. But I understood that you could not. frugalista What makes me fume is that Gordon Brown has, on one side, thousands of civil servants working out how much tax everyone should pay, and then thousands more on the other side working out how much to give back to people, instead of just taking less off the low-earners in the first place. Now that's just so sensible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.