Benefits capped but benefit bill set to rise over next three years!

[maxmaximus]

They might not be being 'taxed', but withdrawal of benefits works in the same way as a tax.

 

If I give you £1000 a month, and then say for each £1 you earn, I will take £1 back. How would that affect your incentive to work?

 

If you earned say £900 a month after tax?

 

At the end of the day, we need to have fair taxes, a citizens income (to reduce poverty), and low effective taxes to stimulate work.

 

It wouldn't which is why they are changing it and making claimants jump through hoops to keep their benefits.

[chem1st]

I don't get £140 per week. I don't get pension credit because my partner is younger than me and is still in full time employment. Until I retired, I have worked since I was 15, apart from a couple of years raising my children and an overseas posting.

People today will work even longer (perhaps starting a little later at 18 years old due to the government and tax system treating them like children).

 

You have it better than they will - unless the system changes in the future. It'd be unfair to keep raising pensions, whilst punishing today's and future generations.

 

£110 + bus pass + free prescriptions + heating allowance + private pensions is a lot more than £71 a week. Not forgetting a very very young retirement age of 60. (Whilst young people today who have had to pay for an education, will have to wait till nigh on 70.)

 

That's all an insured worker would get in dole (Both would be able to claim means tested benefits on top). And NI pays for the previous generation. When it started 4%NI got you a dole far superior to the pension. Over time the pension and dole were equalised. Now the dole is far less than a pension, yet NI is now 12%, and for what?

 

People paying 12%NI - the highest rate of NI ever, are now being told their effective retirement age is up 12 years, that their dole is to be cut! Fat load of good paying NI does ya! They should let people opt out. Wages are so low, the people paying NI are hardly ever likely enough to build enough savings to be disqualified from means tested income benefits anyhow.

 

Contribution based benefits need to be a lot higher. People now pay triple the amount of their wages in NI and receive less than a pension!

 

One thing I would like to see, is more of an effort made to get maintenance paid by absent fathers, married or not. That could cut single parent parent payments even more.

 

I reckon this would just lead to more problems, as it would affect the means tested benefits the mother would be getting. The mans effective tax rate would be increased, for no benefit to the man, mother or child.

The man (or absent woman) would be punished, and probably discincentivised from working in the first place.

 

I suppose the biggest problem is the means test. That causes problems every time.

 

You yourself are probably punished for having saved.

Savers are punished by the pension means test (some of them can be worse off for having saved - much like people can be worse of for working)

Amongst working age benefits;

Workers are punished.

Savers are punished

Dual working parents are punished.

Even the unemployed are punished by the means test, as it doesn't make working worthwhile.

 

What we need is a citizens income.

Get rid of the pension completely (by extending them to all [perhaps with lower rates for those who haven't built up their NI payments]), and have tax breaks for old age...

 

Perhaps keep the winter fuel, or provide some work for the youth on education breaks in Summer, digging coal and divy up rations to the elderly in coal/cash.

 

Nationalise public transport, but allow for private taxis and the likes to compete., and give everybody a free bus pass.

 

Free prescriptions and healthcare for all. Or a small nominal charge (of £1 or less) for all to healthcare services and prescriptions to stop time-wasters.

 

---------- Post added 09-01-2013 at 00:03 ----------

 

It wouldn't which is why they are changing it and making claimants jump through hoops to keep their benefits.

 

Jumping through hoops is pointless though. And it costs money to make people do this unproductive economic activity, we need to employ an army of bureaucrats to do useless work. And stop people from looking for work, so that they can jump through hoops instead!

 

They should be encouraging work by making people better off for working in the first place. Simple as that.

 

EMTRs should be reduced to 50%!

[Vague_Boy]

Why should they be expected to pay for it, for the previous generation?

 

By that logic, why should the previous generation pay for the next one?

[Green Web]

No we just need to work longer before we retire so the young don't have such a huge burden to bear.

 

---------- Post added 08-01-2013 at 21:36 ----------

 

 

Set at 65% and workers will be better off than non workers.

 

So for every £1.00 you earn you loose 65p in benefits? No sane person is going to work part time for 35p in every pound they earn.

 

Unless the work is above a certain threshold then I'll just stick to cash in hand.

 

We need a Guaranteed Basic Income / Citizens Income like Chem1st mentioned.

 

Everyone starts off on a level playing field, workers are instantly better off without doing anything, and anyone out of work will always be significantly better off working regardless of their circumstances, and it'll save the public purse.

[chem1st]

By that logic, why should the previous generation pay for the next one?

 

I'm pretty sure a society without a state would invest more in its young, than it would into cash transfers unto the elderly.

 

Given the choice between feeding your own children and paying for your parents to have a better meal out, I'm pretty sure most would buy food for their children.

 

There is a social contract, and there have been stronger ones in the past, and there will be in the future. The way things are going though the current one is about to break.

 

We should have old age care. But at the same time we should invest in the young and build housing for the people. Or at least let them build their own.

 

You also have to remember our society is rapidly changing. New communities are being born. With their own self interests of preservation and kinship. Britain is changing, women born here aren't having enough children - we have had sub replacement fertility ever year since 1971. We aren't a society of Quakers. Nor are we Catholic, or even Church of England.

 

UK plc. is a business that is detrimental to its staff, requires new staff all the time and has a high staff turnover. And it's staff can't afford to raise a family, educate them proper or even expose them to cultural activities.

[Tradescanthia]

Yep totally agree Chem1st, young people, immigrants and other low paid workers are struggling because of the lavish lifestyle OAP's on state pension have, many OAP's especially in this region have paid very little into the system and are taking huge chunks out, many OAP's are a disgrace and if they can't feed themselves on £140 per week with rent and council tax paid then they don't deserve it.

 

Have you always been 'hard of thinking' or is it just an isolated attack??? The basic pension only represents something like 25% of the average natonal salary so it is unfairly low. I am not quite a pensioner yet, I have 18 months to go but only work part time due to disabilities.

We paid higher proportions of our incomes into the state scheme than you probably do, plus basic rates of income tax were considerably higher than now. When I started work the basic rate of tax was 35%.

We did 'proper' jobs as well, like steelmaking, engineering and mining, not soft jobs like IT and call centers. If you were stood in front of me and started calling me a disgrace I would have to take issue with you.

You are a total moronic disgrace. With your attitude I dont think you will reach pension age..............................

[Green Web]

Its laughable and insulting to suggest that £140.00 a week solely to spend on food can only buy you a few scraps.

[chem1st]

So for every £1.00 you earn you loose 65p in benefits? No sane person is going to work part time for 35p in every pound they earn.

 

Unless the work is above a certain threshold then I'll just stick to cash in hand.

 

I reckon a small majority will work for income with effective tax rates of 65%. But that there will be considerable pressure for higher wages (a new union movement will be born )

 

The level of cash in hand is a good barometer of the amounts people will work for (after effective taxes).

 

I'd personally go for an effective tax upon earned income of 50%. Over time this could be reduced and taxes could be shifted on to other things, such as land, and possibly consumption - as standard, these taxes would be progressive.

 

We need a Guaranteed Basic Income / Citizens Income like Chem1st mentioned.

Agreed.

 

Everyone starts off on a level playing field, workers are instantly better off without doing anything, and anyone out of work will always be significantly better off working regardless of their circumstances, and it'll save the public purse.

 

That is why!

 

It creates a level playing field, it also ensures all basic needs are met.

[Tradescanthia]

As for raising the retirement age chem1st, most of us did lousy dirty dusty hazardous jobs, many are now paying the price with lung diseases etc. Many of us are knackered. We had no soft office jobs, we had to graft for a living. I myself was a swing grinder, quite highly paid but VERY dirty and hazardous. We have seen both sides of the coin and you younger lot have it far easier due to Health and Safety legislation.

Stop whinging, get on with it, you lot owe us !!!

[Green Web]

But it was well paid work, you could afford the basics such as house, run a car, buy cigarettes, a few pints and the occasional holiday.

 

But this wasn't good enough so you spent the 80's and 90's on strike and the 2000's on dole until they reached 60 and could claim state pension.