Benefit Changes a big mistake

[melthebell 862]

my post was in response to an earlier post regarding people losing benefits for 3 years which given that they will do this only after the 3rd time they refuse to work then they are clearly in the wont category

6 monthd and is the first strike someat like a month? 2 months?

[chem1st 10]

6 monthd and is the first strike someat like a month? 2 months?

 

Depends on the failure.

 

Failure to attend JSA/ESA interview, 1 week, 2 week, 4 week sanctions

 

Failure to be available to work/seek work, 4 weeks then 3 months

 

Failure to apply or take a job or participate in workfare, 3months, 6 months, 3 years.

[barny_100 10]

77% would not be that bad of a tax for them.

 

80, 83 and 98.5% income taxes existed quite recently for the highest paid.

 

Unless we have these higher taxes for the higher earners, we will never tackle inequality. Progressive taxation is needed, 61% for current graduates and 51% for the elders on high incomes is just too low.

 

The higher classes whom tax themselves relatively little whilst increasing the burden of the poor are the totalitarians.

 

Rubbish. What you are saying is you want to tax other people to pay for things you desire. It's not a great leap in principle to demanding someone's phone in the street for the same reason. Anyway even if your mad ideas were enacted economic activity would nosedive and the country would financially implode. People respond to incentives, with those tax rates there is greatly reduced incentive to earn if you barely see the benefit.

 

Also the totalitarian comment was mainly aimed at your suggestion you would ban otherwise legal economic activity purely on the basis you don't like the people engaging in it. Brushing past Godwins law I could suggest that's a little like this? Socialisation perhaps?!

[Wildcat 10]

Depends on the failure.

 

Failure to attend JSA/ESA interview, 1 week, 2 week, 4 week sanctions

 

Failure to be available to work/seek work, 4 weeks then 3 months

 

Failure to apply or take a job or participate in workfare, 3months, 6 months, 3 years.

 

With no discretion allowed and no right of appeal. So regardless of how good your reasons, you are made homeless and hungry. With no options except begging or theft to keep you alive.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Wildcat

[chem1st 10]

Rubbish. What you are saying is you want to tax other people to pay for things you desire. It's not a great leap in principle to demanding someone's phone in the street for the same reason. Anyway even if your mad ideas were enacted economic activity would nosedive and the country would financially implode. People respond to incentives, with those tax rates there is greatly reduced incentive to earn if you barely see the benefit.

 

Also the totalitarian comment was mainly aimed at your suggestion you would ban otherwise legal economic activity purely on the basis you don't like the people engaging in it. Brushing past Godwins law I could suggest that's a little like this? Socialisation perhaps?!

 

More like this...

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_structure/incometaxrates_1974to1990.pdf

[chem1st 10]

With no discretion allowed and no right of appeal. So regardless of how good your reasons, you are made homeless and hungry. With no options except begging or theft to keep you alive.

 

I think they will allow appeals and good reasons.

 

Hardship payments will be available in the form of a loan.

[Wildcat 10]

I think they will allow appeals and good reasons.

 

Hardship payments will be available in the form of a loan.

 

Was the Independent briefed wrong then?

 

At present, jobseekers can lose their JSA payments-currently £64.45 a week for most people - for up to 26 weeks.

 

But they still receive "hardship payments" of about £40-£45 a week instead.

 

Government sources said the current penalty was at the discretion of jobs advisers and was rarely enforced.

 

In future, a mandatory system of sanctions would leave previous claimants without any jobless benefits. "We are not going to take away with one hand and give with the other," said one official.

 

There would be no right of appeal against the loss of jobless benefits.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jobless-who-refuse-work-will-lose-benefits-for-up-to-three-years-2130868.html

[Miss Ben E F 10]

Solomon Grundy,

Jobless on Monday,

ESA on Tuesday,

JSA Wednesday,

Housing Benefit Cut on Thursday,

Homeless on Friday,

Died on Saturday,

Buried on Sunday,

Thats the end of Solomon Grundy.

[chem1st 10]

Was the Independent briefed wrong then?

 

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jobless-who-refuse-work-will-lose-benefits-for-up-to-three-years-2130868.html

 

Aye,

 

Point 15, page 29 of the white paper;

 

Most people want to find work and will never be in the position of facing a sanction. The aim of our changes is to make the consequences of failure clearer and simpler. We anticipate that most people who are sanctioned will receive a lower level sanction and indeed the majority of people are only ever sanctioned once. For those who repeatedly fail to meet their responsibility to look for work there will be progression through the sanctions regime to the tougher penalties. Recipients in this category will have had many opportunities to demonstrate engagement and will have been clearly warned of the consequences of continued non-compliance. The penalty of losing three years of Jobseeker’s Allowance will apply to the most extreme cases, where benefit recipients have serially and deliberately breached conditions, and where other sanctions have not worked to change their behaviour. Recipients will continue to be able to show good cause and, as now, after a sanction has been imposed, recipients will continue to have the ability to appeal. We will also maintain safeguards for vulnerable people and ensure that mental health and substance abuse problems are taken into consideration.

[barny_100 10]

More like this...

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_structure/incometaxrates_1974to1990.pdf

 

Aside from the fact you don't seem to read posts properly and are answering one point with the answer to another I know full well the disgraceful history (83% FFS!). I also note with interest how the highest rates go with the grimmest times for the British economy...

[chem1st 10]

Aside from the fact you don't seem to read posts properly and are answering one point with the answer to another I know full well the disgraceful history (83% FFS!). I also note with interest how the highest rates go with the grimmest times for the British economy...

 

83% is not that high.

 

For 1947-48 a special contribution was payable when a person’s total income exceeded £2,000. For investment income over £5,000 it was 50%. So with income tax at 45% and surtax at 52.5%, the effective rate was 147.5%.

 

source

 

Whilst 147.5% is excessive, 97.5% for the highest earners would be a welcome addition (£10 million + wage on earnings over 10 million)

[CorkerSWFC 10]

83% is not that high.

 

 

 

source

 

Whilst 147.5% is excessive, 97.5% for the highest earners would be a welcome addition.

 

Don't trust stats, look at the crimes stats what come out every now and then, they don't tell the real story atall because of people not reporting things to police.