chem1st Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Approximately 30 million people in the UK – approximately half the total population – receive income from at least one social security benefit http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf Table 2.1 on page 5 breaks down these benefits. Total benefits for families with children; 18.11% of total. Total benefits for unemployed people; 2.58% of total. Total benefits for people on low incomes; 22.08% of total. Total benefits for elderly people; 41.64% of total. Total benefits for sick and disabled people; 15.17% of total. Total benefits for bereaved people; 0.36% of total. Other benefits; Christmas bonus; 0.08% of total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 And, your point is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 And, your point is?Does he need one? It's move over to land ownership or landlords in a short while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Does he need one? It's move over to land ownership or landlords in a short while. I don't think he does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 And, your point is? I would question the efficiency of a system that pays for the bureaucracy to collect money off people and then pays for the bureaucracy to give it back to them again. I suspect in a lot of cases it's be more efficient just to charge less in tax in the first place, rather than collect it and waste money on getting it back again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I would question the efficiency of a system that pays for the bureaucracy to collect money off people and then pays for the bureaucracy to give it back to them again. I suspect in a lot of cases it's be more efficient just to charge less in tax in the first place, rather than collect it and waste money on getting it back again. I agree, most working folk get working tax credits which must cost HMRC an absolute fortune to administer, why not just alter the tax codes and tax less in the first place? I suppose it keeps a lot of people at HMRC in a job, I wonder if it was made that way by design? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I've no idea if your figures are correct, but I've been making the point for ages that governments manipulate statistics to create whatever impression they want, and with the collusion of the media, stir up hate campaigns against vulnerable sections of society. At the moment they want people to think that a)benefits are too generous (they're not) and b)claiments are all a bunch of lazy scrounging layabouts that are draining the economy dry (they're not.) So people respond by demanding benefits are cut, not realising that not only are they attacking the worst off in society but they may be shooting themselves in the foot. It plays beautifully into the government's hands who are only too happy to oblige. Now before somebody tells me that some claimants ARE scrounging, well yes it happens sometimes, and needs tackling. But these cases are far fewer than you are led to believe. Meanwhile a whole section of society who need your support are being vilified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I would question the efficiency of a system that pays for the bureaucracy to collect money off people and then pays for the bureaucracy to give it back to them again. I suspect in a lot of cases it's be more efficient just to charge less in tax in the first place, rather than collect it and waste money on getting it back again. Or get Employers to pay a decent living wage so that they don't need tax credits etc. Greece's minimum wage has just been cut by 25% to just over £500 per month. It could happen here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Or get Employers to pay a decent living wage so that they don't need tax credits etc. Greece's minimum wage has just been cut by 25% to just over £500 per month. It could happen here. And do you imagine that all employers can afford to pay people more than the market rate? Your point also doesn't address my point, which is that every £x paid out in tax credits has cost £y to collect. There would be more money for people to actually spend if rather than have tax collected and re-allocated to them, the amount of tax they paid in the first place was a function of their need. I guess there used to be a limited number of tax codes when it was all done manually, but there is no need to limit them now. I am one of the 50% who pay tax and get tax credits. I could pay less tax in the first place and still have the same disposable income. The money that is currently wasted on admin could either be left in my pay packet, making my family better off, or collected in tax, making me no worse off and the country slightly better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I'm a bit rusty on my maths so could you point out which of your quoted is a Majority please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.