More bad news for Balls and Miliband as unemployment continues to fall

[L00b 441]

Nothing is free.

Benefits are not free in that "someone" has to generate enough added value on a good or service (i.e. sold to a 3rd party for profit), for the added value (profit) to be taxed, and for that tax income to be redistributed as benefits.

 

But that "someone" is not the benefit recipient.

 

So, benefits are effectively 'free' to benefit recipients.

 

That benefit recipients should aspire to, and eventually end up being, the "someone" (thus off the benefits, and contributing towards them) is the whole idea.

 

[/re-stating Obelix's post for the hard-of-understanding]

 

(not a dig at benefit recipients, simply objective statement of facts)

Edited September 13, 2013 by L00b

[Mecky 10]

Benefits are not free in that "someone" has to generate enough added value on a good or service (i.e. sold to a 3rd party for profit), for the added value (profit) to be taxed, and for that tax income to be redistributed as benefits.

 

But that "someone" is not the benefit recipient.

 

So, benefits are effectively 'free' to benefit recipients.

 

That benefit recipients should aspire to, and eventually end up being, the "someone" (thus off the benefits, and contributing towards them) is the whole idea.

 

[/re-stating Obelix's post for the hard-of-understanding]

 

(not a dig at benefit recipients, simply objective statement of facts)

 

You pay in and if you're unfortunate you take it. There are a few loafers around but not many, unless of course you frequent the daily sensationalist BS printed in the likes of the Daily Mail and The Sun etc.

[Happ Hazzard 10]

The benefits system has been expanded so much though. Labour allowed benefits to take the place of wages with the assumption that voters would be swayed to vote for the party that gave them the benefits.

[L00b 441]

You pay in and if you're unfortunate you take it.

That's well understood, and accepted.

 

You're the one who sough to reply that "nothing is free" to the taxpayer's PoV expressed about a post claiming that redistribution of wealth is ongoing to the 'detriment' of the poor.

 

The poor are no worse-off now, comparatively, than they have ever been (under the regime of social assistance): save for a few ultra-rich, who were always going to stay ultra-rich (by analogy to your few loafers, who were never going to contribute), everybody's been poorer for a while now.

 

It's just the elementary principle of communicating vessels in effect. Less tax paid in = less benefits paid out.

[LeMaquis 10]

Benefits are not free in that "someone" has to generate enough added value on a good or service (i.e. sold to a 3rd party for profit), for the added value (profit) to be taxed, and for that tax income to be redistributed as benefits.

 

But that "someone" is not the benefit recipient.

 

So, benefits are effectively 'free' to benefit recipients.

 

...simply objective statement of facts)

 

A dog is an animal.

 

A cat is an animal.

 

Therefore a dog is a cat.

 

Simple objective statement of fact.

 

Pensioners get "free" benefits but most of them will have paid into the system for years before they're entitled. People of working age will largely have worked and paid into the system. People pay in at some times and get benefits at others. It's easy to pay into the system and get benefits simultaneously. People work, pay tax but get tax credits. Most people pay into and receive from the system. We pay for the system that pays for us. It's therefore not free unless you never pay anything in but that's very few people.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2013 at 12:46 ----------

 

The poor are no worse-off now, comparatively, than they have ever been (under the regime of social assistance)....

 

The number of food banks, bedroom tax and charges for Council Tax to those on benefits say otherwise.

Edited September 13, 2013 by LeMaquis

[Happ Hazzard 10]

What is the point of people paying in and getting tax credits back? Why don't they just get to keep their own money in the first place?

[L00b 441]

A dog is an animal.

 

A cat is an animal.

 

Therefore a dog is a cat.

 

Simple objective statement of fact.

Nice syllogistic fallacy, LeMaquis Irrelevant, unsurprisingly

 

If you're going to quote me, please quote the full post next time, rather than cut/paste and shift bits of my text to distort its meaning for suiting your strawman.

Pensioners get "free" benefits but most of them will have paid into the system for years before they're entitled. People of working age will largely have worked and paid into the system. People pay in at some times and get benefits at others. It's easy to pay into the system and get benefits simultaneously. People work, pay tax but get tax credits. Most people pay into and receive from the system. We pay for the system that pays for us. It's therefore not free unless you never pay anything in but that's very few people.

I agree (and the above is in line with my ealrier post btw: that benefit recipients should aspire to, and eventually end up being, the "someone" (thus off the benefits, and contributing towards them) is the whole idea). I've kept it deliberately simple, by all means let's use server storage and bandwidth and set about re-writing the Wealth of Nations. Bit by bit if you don't mind, as I'm not here all day

The number of food banks, bedroom tax and charges for Council Tax to those on benefits say otherwise.

They go hand-in-hand with the ever-widening gap between inflation and wage appreciation (in the context of steady taxation levels), cancellation of tax breaks/subsidies (e.g. child benefit) for specific taxpayers, increased full rates of council tax, etc.

 

Communicating vessels, LM.

Edited September 13, 2013 by L00b

[SpikeMac 10]

So let me get this right - I pay about a third of my wage to the Govt, which gives it to people that are less fortunate and need some support.

 

You say that is wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich? Why then is so much flowing the other way?

 

What has happened is that the poor are being given a little less free stuff, and the tax rate for most people is also coming down a little as things are getting more expensive.

 

Not entirely. Your 33% tax does fund benefits, but not much goes on that.

 

It also pays to keep you and me safe. To provide you and me with decent health care. To provide your company with an educated workforce (and hence, my wages... thanks for that).

 

If you genuinely pay 33% in tax, then hats off to you. Loads don't and the Government don't seem to exercised by that. Just as they prioritised a tax cut for the most wealthy above much needed investment in services for us all. That's what I meant by redistribution.

 

FYI, I spent a large proportion of my afternoon deciding whether I could afford to spend a few hundred quid of my meagre budget on some new quickfit apparatus for our sixth formers. Such are my margins at the moment.

Edited September 14, 2013 by SpikeMac

[Vague_Boy 10]

Not entirely. Your 33% tax does fund benefits, but not much goes on that.

 

It also pays to keep you and I safe. To provide you and I with decent health care. To provide your company with an educated workforce (and hence, my wages... thanks for that).

 

In Hong Kong the average tax rate is 2% [LINK]. And yet they beat the pants of us in healthcare, education and longevity.

 

Hong Kong tops global health index

 

Education [LINK]

 

Life expectancy [LINK]

 

And as for an educated workforce:

 

Hong Kong workforce most productive in Asia

 

A report (PDF) compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit for Citigroup ranked 120 cities in terms of their economic strength, financial maturity and global appeal. Hong Kong’s workforce is ranked best in Asia. But because of its poor ranking in environmental and natural hazards – falling outside of the global top 50 – it conceded the top spot to Singapore.

 

Nonetheless the ranking is still high; only Dublin is better than Hong Kong with respect to human capital which includes the quality of education and health care as well as the ease of hiring – and firing – of foreign workers.

 

LINK

 

And in Britain?

 

Almost half of employers forced to teach teenagers basic literacy and numeracy skills

 

Clearly more money (and more taxation) is very far from being an automatic solution.

[Mecky 10]

The poor are no worse-off now, comparatively, than they have ever been (under the regime of social assistance): save for a few ultra-rich, who were always going to stay ultra-rich (by analogy to your few loafers, who were never going to contribute), everybody's been poorer for a while now.

 

I beg your pardon

[angos 10]

In Hong Kong the average tax rate is 2% [LINK]. And yet they beat the pants of us in healthcare, education and longevity.

 

Hong Kong tops global health index

 

Education [LINK]

 

Life expectancy [LINK]

 

And as for an educated workforce:

 

 

 

LINK

 

And in Britain?

 

Almost half of employers forced to teach teenagers basic literacy and numeracy skills

 

Clearly more money (and more taxation) is very far from being an automatic solution.

 

But not for everyone, there is an hidden society of extremely poor people living in Hong Kong, their system unlike ours encourages everyone to work because if they don't they starve.

It was all revealed on a TV documentary a couple of months ago.

 

 

Hong Kong's human battery hens: Claustrophobic images show how slum families squeeze their lives into the tiniest apartments

 

They are barely bigger than a toilet cubicle.

 

Yet these depressingly cramped spaces serve as a kitchen, living room, dining room, bedroom, pantry and everything in between for their cooped-up inhabitants.

 

Those unfortunate enough to live in these urban slums range from the elderly and unemployed to low-income families and singletons.

 

Their location? Hong Kong. One of the richest cities in the world.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2282764/Hong-Kongs-human-battery-hens-Claustrophobic-images-slum-families-squeeze-lives-tiniest-apartments.html#ixzz2eqQ1pxfd

Edited September 14, 2013 by angos

[LeMaquis 10]

I agree (and the above is in line with my ealrier post btw: that benefit recipients should aspire to, and eventually end up being, the "someone" (thus off the benefits, and contributing towards them) is the whole idea). I've kept it deliberately simple, by all means let's use server storage and bandwidth and set about re-writing the Wealth of Nations. Bit by bit if you don't mind, as I'm not here all day

 

They go hand-in-hand with the ever-widening gap between inflation and wage appreciation (in the context of steady taxation levels), cancellation of tax breaks/subsidies (e.g. child benefit) for specific taxpayers, increased full rates of council tax, etc.

 

I am not trying to rewrite Wealth Of Nations. I am trying to rewrite Das Kapital.

 

Food banks, CT charges and the bedroom tax hit the unemployed hardest. Wage appreciation doesn't affect them. Their poverty has not been caused by people on over £50,000 losing some child benefit or by increased full rates of CT, which hasn't gone up in Sheffield this year. The CT charges are the decision to charge everyone 16% or so of CT, not overall CT increases.

 

I didn't realise Marie-Antoinette was still alive.