Anna B Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Most folks who earn over £100k contribute far more to the system than they take out. Most folk on welfare claim far more out than they put in. Perhaps they intend to give more generous treatment to the wealthy. I don't know about the 100K figure, but I do remember reading an article in the telegraph about this very subject. Whilst it would seem probable that the poor pay in less but claim more, it proved via charts and tables that the reverse is true. Mainly, as I remember it, because the wealthy live several years longer and the most use of 'welfare facilities' (including hospital treatment) occur in old age, the longer lived actually claim the most, and that tends to be the wealthy. They also tend to claim the state pension for much longer. Curious but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 I don't know about the 100K figure, but I do remember reading an article in the telegraph about this very subject. Whilst it would seem probable that the poor pay in less but claim more, it proved via charts and tables that the reverse is true. Mainly, as I remember it, because the wealthy live several years longer and the most use of 'welfare facilities' (including hospital treatment) occur in old age, the longer lived actually claim the most, and that tends to be the wealthy. They also tend to claim the state pension for much longer. Curious but true. I remember watching an edition of World In Action in the late 1980s which had Nicholas Parsons hosting a mock game show between 2 families (one family represented the poor, the other represented well off). Each family had to answer who used which service and claimed what benefit. It was provocatively titled 'the scroungers' or something like that. At the end of the quiz the family with the most points, (i.e. which used the most state services) were crowned the spongers. It found the better off family used the most services by a margin. As you rightly say people talk about welfare, in narrow terms, but forget about other things that state provides that they take advantage off. Contributory principle is fine, and I did read that Byrne has said full employment is the foundation which their ideas of welfare are built on. I'd welcome that - as long as full employment doesn't mean a rolling out of the 'workfare' scheme, or the taxpayer subsidising miserly employers. And the contributory principle should include those that dodge their taxes as well. Labour need to be more aggressive in closing the loopholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Labour have an open goal on benefit policy at the moment, and they come up with this trash. Labour are basing it on full employment, in other words, fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Labour have an open goal on benefit policy at the moment, and they come up with this trash. Labour are basing it on full employment, in other words, fantasy. It depends what you understand by full employment. It generally means an optimum level of employment as close to 100% as possible. Not everybody can work (no matter what Atos says) so it'll never be 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 It depends what you understand by full employment. It generally means an optimum level of employment as close to 100% as possible. Not everybody can work (no matter what Atos says) so it'll never be 100%. There is no way off achieving full employment whilst we are part of the EU, because the more work that the government creates here, the more people will come here to work, the consequence of that is an higher cost of living here, expensive houses, overloaded public services, by creating jobs we are just creating more problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 It depends what you understand by full employment. It generally means an optimum level of employment as close to 100% as possible. Not everybody can work (no matter what Atos says) so it'll never be 100%. Depends on the economist, some say it's less than 3% unemployment, some say it's 6-8%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Depends on the economist, some say it's less than 3% unemployment, some say it's 6-8%. Indeed. Labour will really mean something in that range not a 100% employment level. If anything it shows how the language used has to chosen carefully. The term full employment is a bit too lefty, too loaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dromedary Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Labour have an open goal on benefit policy at the moment, and they come up with this trash. Labour are basing it on full employment, in other words, fantasy. To try and achieve that myth of full employment they decided to spend £billions on the back to work schemes which has failed dramatically as you cant give people jobs if no jobs are available. This Government have followed suite and done the same and invested several more £billions in the workfare scheme which is also failing for the same reasons. At present, and despite that money being spent, only around 3% of those on the schemes have managed to get into full time employment. The only people who seem to get work are the very people who implement these bogus schemes. Things can only get worse as time drags on and looking at what is happening in the EU, countries will have to start to accept a high level of unemployment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 To try and achieve that myth of full employment they decided to spend £billions on the back to work schemes which has failed dramatically as you cant give people jobs if no jobs are available. This Government have followed suite and done the same and invested several more £billions in the workfare scheme which is also failing for the same reasons. At present, and despite that money being spent, only around 3% of those on the schemes have managed to get into full time employment. The only people who seem to get work are the very people who implement these bogus schemes. Things can only get worse as time drags on and looking at what is happening in the EU, countries will have to start to accept a high level of unemployment. Yup I don't understand the logic of spending £billions on back to work schemes when it could be given directly to companies to take on apprentices or directly create jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Given that some people are not able to support themselves, it seems pretty obvious that some people will pay in more than they get back. I note that: "Labour wants to "strengthen the old principle of contribution" ..."people who work and contribute to their community" should get priority in social housing. Does that mean that councillors and other employees of the state should take priority on council house lists? As they did back in the 70's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.