Should unemployment benefits be cut?

[Cyclone]

Well let me set your mind at rest. In the remarkably unrealistic scenario of someone working for one hour a week whilst on JSA at £5.50 for that hour, not only would they not be taxed, but only 50p would reduced from their JSA, and the housing and council tax costs will not be affected unless the have wsavings.

 

Are you happier now? I can guarantee that in net income, someone won't be worse off.

 

Can you also see though how bringing a debate to a point of reductio ad absurdum actually has now destroyed your credibility?

 

So there is no benefit trap ever for anyone?

Maybe the press have just been misleading us and people don't turn down jobs because they'll actually be worse off once the benefits are cut and the wages are paid?

 

And no, it was just a simple example, it was an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, just simple. Maybe you'd have been happier if I'd said 10 hours, it's irrelevant to the point being made about the benefit trap.

[convert]

Not really. I remember working and living in a place which didn't have a landline. I really hated the idea of having a mobile, but I needed one to keep in contact with my family.

 

That aside, £10 a month to allow people to contact you directly, let alone you contact them via pre-paid minutes (make sure you use them folks - I'm tight like that!) on that contract or texts really isn't a massive amount, and they still have to pay it from benefits.

 

They'd have to pay more from a landline. I'm really struggling to understand your train of thought.

 

Quite simple. £120 per year on a mobile is a luxury spend (how many actually take on a £10 contract though, most seem to go for the £35 that gets them the latest 'pear' phone with goggle and facepalm). A cheap £15 PAYG mobile, £10 credit (I hear ASDA are quite cheap for this) and a little self control would save the person, and hence the taxpayer, at least £95 pa if not £395 pa.

 

Hobbies known to all sorts of people. Do you think there should be bouncers on the doors of bookies?

You are quite correct, however I wouldn't consider gambling, drinking and smoking to be hobbies.

I don't think that bookies should employ bouncers; snipers would be better.

 

 

If they've got away with it for decades (which they haven't), I would hardly think that they made the mistake ....

You are quite right; I'm wrong on this one.

 

If they've got away with it for years, then it isn't their mistake. It's the mistake of society as a whole, and more specifically those who administer the benefits.

 

Perhaps the time has come to pay a flat rate benefit to all (including those who work), raise income tax slightly and get rid of EVERYONE employed to administer the system.

[brianthedog]

Cut - without a doubt. All government spending needs cutting. Clearly, paying people who contribute absolutely nothing to the economy does not make sense. I accept the need for the payments, but just not at the current level.

[missflirtuk]

I have a pay as you go mobile (never have credit) my nan gave it me when she got a new one, I bought my tv from my cousin so it's second hand, the laptop we saved like hell for from a shop which was second hand. My sofa was given to me, my daughter's bed was given to me by her grandma. Her toybox was given to me. So people can have nice things if they save. Even if it's only £5 a week they save it all adds up.

[daftlad]

The cuts should start by banning overseas aid for a start. We should look after our coutries people first, then if there is any spare send it overseas

[Grandad.Malky]

I have a pay as you go mobile (never have credit) my nan gave it me when she got a new one, I bought my tv from my cousin so it's second hand, the laptop we saved like hell for from a shop which was second hand. My sofa was given to me, my daughter's bed was given to me by her grandma. Her toybox was given to me. So people can have nice things if they save. Even if it's only £5 a week they save it all adds up.

 

I don’t know you age but I presume you are fairly young; we have all been there and done what you are describing.

 

When I bought my first house I had a single bed a TV and some bean bags and that was about it, I basically lived in one room because there was no furniture to but in the other rooms.

[Anna B]

Conservative government pops in a few taxes on the middle class and poor with breaks for the rich.

Labour government pops in a few taxes for everyone and a few benefits for the poor with breaks for the middle classes and rich.

 

Conservative government pops in a few taxes on the middle class and poor with breaks for the rich.

Labour government pops in a few taxes for everyone and a few benefits for the poor with breaks for the middle classes and rich.

 

Repeat.

 

Everytime they quote how much is being spent on benefits, I wonder how much of that figure is actually administration costs.

 

It must cost billions just to sort the whole complicated mess and get the benefits to the right people..

[chem1st]

Everytime they quote how much is being spent on benefits, I wonder how much of that figure is actually administration costs.

 

It must cost billions just to sort the whole complicated mess and get the benefits to the right people..

 

Consider council tax benefit TAX-BENEFIT. I started this thread about the madness;

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6343471#post6343471

 

 

To be honest I wouldn't be surprised to see a benefit tax, and arguably it would make things fairer (along with highlighting the idiocy of the system).

 

A 40 hour working week on nmw wage is taxed, but some people can come out with more on benefits.

[dazzler4]

There is.

 

 

 

So what about the person who applies for job after job after job (and not for pie in the sky either), but gets pipped to the post time after time?

 

S/he gets nothing because s/he has been unlucky? I've spent years interviewing people in this sort of position, and there are a damned sight more than you'd think.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are many who swing the lead. There are many who won't lower their sights, but what I do know is this. Most who sign on are genuine, and the vast majority find work within weeks.

 

The incessant demonisation of those who sign on is frankly unwarranted, especially as few do for very long.

 

i appreciate what you are saying and i do know that there are people in the position where they apply unsuccessfully for job after job. but i also see that there are many more that just cannot be ar*ed! the jobcentre's are over stretched and unable to verify jobs applied for and interviews etc.

when i went to sign on fortnightly, none of my applications were checked.

That is one place i just could not work, they are brave people!

[happyhippy]

So there is no benefit trap ever for anyone?

Maybe the press have just been misleading us and people don't turn down jobs because they'll actually be worse off once the benefits are cut and the wages are paid?

 

And no, it was just a simple example, it was an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, just simple. Maybe you'd have been happier if I'd said 10 hours, it's irrelevant to the point being made about the benefit trap.

 

The thing about the 'benefit trap' is that it can't be debated as a reductio ad absurdum argument. In this case it becomes the argument of the 'rutting deer' pub bores. Taking it to that level actually debases the argument, and also the situation that many still find themselves in.

 

Therefore, we're both pub bores

 

The reality is that people have different circumstances. The pure arithmetic will show that it is impossible to receive less (net) in earnings in work than out of work.

 

Pure arithmetic in benefits doesn't take into consideration other matters, such as PPI, or reduced CSA payments through unemployment, for example. Travel costs can easily outweigh the financial gain from working. That isn't doubted.

 

Even nagged because you're not earning enough by your other half. This can be a big difference, the latter in particular!