Tony Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I've heard this before - the Green Party used to bang on about it (maybe they still do). How would you fund it? (It would be extremely costly). For comparison, apparently it costs the CSA an astounding 40p for every £1 that they collect. Goodness knows what the figure would be if we accounted for what the fail to collect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I've heard this before - the Green Party used to bang on about it (maybe they still do). How would you fund it? (It would be extremely costly). The costs would depend on the rate. The current benefit system must cost a fair bit just in administration costs, if those were cut then savings could be made, or benefits increased. How about a negative income tax rate, hmrc should already know people's income, if it's below a certain level they get paid benefits, reduced at 50p in the pound for every pound they earn over that. Everyone would be better off working because they wouldn't see their benefits cut drastically unless they were earning a decent wage. The main problem is the way the benefit system traps people on benefits, makes it so that some people are better off on benefits than working. It's got more to do with all the bureaucratic rules than the actual rates paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themissis Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 That's what some people earn by working fulltime Just to say, I work 2 jobs..... 8am till 4.30pm then straight onto next job 5pm till 7pm Monday to Friday. I STILL don't earn £13000 per year! I have a mortgage a 16 yr old son whos left school and not re entered the education system. and absolutely NO benefits. Hard work but it can be done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Take current benefit expenditure, divide by number of people, pay it to all. . . . ..Ok, so very roughly, you take the benefits that 3 million non-working people receive, and divide it among 60 million people. Don't you think the average benefit claimant will be a bit miffed at having his benefits reduced to 5% of what he received before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Ok, so very roughly, you take the benefits that 3 million non-working people receive, and divide it among 60 million people. Don't you think the average benefit claimant will be a bit miffed at having his benefits reduced to 5% of what he received before? I think for a realistic plan to work you'd have to take account of people's income (or lack of it) & pay it accordingly. I'm sure it could be done with a few adjustments to the income tax system. If chem1st wants to pay benefits to millionaires then he's probably on his own with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul2412 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Just to say, I work 2 jobs..... 8am till 4.30pm then straight onto next job 5pm till 7pm Monday to Friday. I STILL don't earn £13000 per year! I have a mortgage a 16 yr old son whos left school and not re entered the education system. and absolutely NO benefits. Hard work but it can be done You work full time, 8am to 4:30pm and then a second job and don't earn £13,000 a year? Do you mean after tax here or your gross salary? Because surely that is below minimum wage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I think for a realistic plan to work you'd have to take account of people's income (or lack of it) & pay it accordingly. I'm sure it could be done with a few adjustments to the income tax system. If chem1st wants to pay benefits to millionaires then he's probably on his own with that.Much as it is now. What the Greens proposed a few years ago was to pay everybody a fixed 'livable' sum. Their idea was that nobody would have to deal with the social stigma of claiming benefits if out of work, and it would be funded by imposing very high tax levels on anybody who did work. What little curiosity I had for the positive aspects of the Green Party evaporated when I realised they couldnt' think through something that obvious - no bugger would work officially and we'd end up like Greece in a year or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I think for a realistic plan to work you'd have to take account of people's income (or lack of it) & pay it accordingly. I'm sure it could be done with a few adjustments to the income tax system. If chem1st wants to pay benefits to millionaires then he's probably on his own with that.Not just him, the Greens too (see my post above). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Much as it is now. It's not at all like that now, the devil is in all the details & the extra admin costs & unfairness that they cause. There are so many different benefits with different conditions attached that you'd need to study them full time for months to know exactly what they all are. Even most of the DWP staff don't know them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Ok, so very roughly, you take the benefits that 3 million non-working people receive, and divide it among 60 million people. Don't you think the average benefit claimant will be a bit miffed at having his benefits reduced to 5% of what he received before? I'd take the benefits that 30 million + people receive. And then on top of that I'd introduce LVT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.