Osbornes medicine is working!

[Hillpig]

It has to be done fairly and that is a problem. Our system is increasingly driven by inequality and the dangers with pushing that further should be clear. Quite simply the neo liberal globalist experiment needs to end and be replaced with something better and fairer.

 

But what? Explain what you mean, what would the alternative be?

[andygardener]

Hollande hasn't got a clue. I'm talking about something that is fairly close to the Green party economic policies but with the stupid impossible to achieve eco crap taken out.

 

Read up on Citizens Income. It's actually a very neat idea - a safety net for all with a massively simplified benefits and personal tax system.

 

I had a brief look at Citizens income and it seems competely insane. Instead of cutting benefits we give them to everyone, including the working majority who don't need them, who we then tax more to pay for their benefits they neither need nor want. A costly stupid idea whose sole "merit" seems to be that if everyone gets benefits they'll all feel good about the feckless getting them because they get them too.

 

The exact opposite of what we need in the country which is long term viable prosperity for our people, which will need jobs available for Britons of every ability and not flooding the country with cheap foreign labour as if competing with cheap foreign labour abroad wasn't touch enough.

[I1L2T3]

But what? Explain what you mean, what would the alternative be?

 

Responsible, more localised, more ethical capitalism. A more tightly regulated financial sector. A simplified taxation system and a simplified welfare system. A shift back towards local production. More sustainable growth.

 

If you don't get it already all the main parties want the current system to stabilise not to improve it but to feed us more of the same policies that got us into this mess.

 

Osborne has bizarrely started fuelling another housing bubble. That says it all - he thinks he can boom us out of trouble.

 

---------- Post added 25-04-2013 at 21:47 ----------

 

I had a brief look at Citizens income and it seems competely insane. Instead of cutting benefits we give them to everyone, including the working majority who don't need them, who we then tax more to pay for their benefits they neither need nor want. A costly stupid idea whose sole "merit" seems to be that if everyone gets benefits they'll all feel good about the feckless getting them because they get them too.

 

The exact opposite of what we need in the country which is long term viable prosperity for our people, which will need jobs available for Britons of every ability and not flooding the country with cheap foreign labour as if competing with cheap foreign labour abroad wasn't touch enough.

 

Your reaction is pretty much the same as mine was first time I saw it a couple of years ago. My first thought was why would anybody bother working. It seems counter-intuitive for sure but there are huge advantages. The tax system is simplified - no need for personal allowances. The welfare system is simplified - everybody has enough to meet basic needs. There is a known and certain amount of basic spending power in the economy over all and locally. And to counter my initial reservations it has been shown in places where it was trialled that business activity was likely to increase and there was no great reduction in hours work. I've warmed to the idea a lot. What is really insane is the system we have now - the inequality, regional disparities, a crazy tax system and a welfare system complex beyond all reason. I can't see how you can defend it. I can't see how anybody can.

[wednesday1]

Great result for the Chancellor, despite the difficulties in Europe and the US his brilliance is seeing the UK rise from the ashes of the last Labour debacle.

 

Well done Danny Alexander and Vince Cable. In fact the whole Con/Lib alliance is getting us back on the right track.

 

True blue will get you through!

 

 

 

Medicine working!!! If Osborne was a GP he'd have been struck off long ago!

[andygardener]

Your reaction is pretty much the same as mine was first time I saw it a couple of years ago. My first thought was why would anybody bother working. It seems counter-intuitive for sure but there are huge advantages. The tax system is simplified - no need for personal allowances. The welfare system is simplified - everybody has enough to meet basic needs. There is a known and certain amount of basic spending power in the economy over all and locally. And to counter my initial reservations it has been shown in places where it was trialled that business activity was likely to increase and there was no great reduction in hours work. I've warmed to the idea a lot. What is really insane is the system we have now - the inequality, regional disparities, a crazy tax system and a welfare system complex beyond all reason. I can't see how you can defend it. I can't see how anybody can.

 

The system we have now is being changed to a single benefit. - UC. This will (computer glitches aside of which there will be many no doubt) in theory allow claimants to work and their benefits to be adjusted dynamically according to their earnings. Of course the old system was unwieldy and created disincentives to work. UC should solve that problem. Without the need to jack up taxes to provide benefits to everyone whether they want them or need them.

 

Personal allowances are a very good part of the tax system. Letting low paid workers keep their hard earned instead of taking it and giving it back in the form of top up benefits is an efficient and sensible way of doing things. Personally I'd increase the threshold further and get rid of "tax credits" which are just benefits with another name and have nowt to do with tax.

[MrSmith]

The system we have now is being changed to a single benefit. - UC. This will (computer glitches aside of which there will be many no doubt) in theory allow claimants to work and their benefits to be adjusted dynamically according to their earnings. Of course the old system was unwieldy and created disincentives to work. UC should solve that problem. Without the need to jack up taxes to provide benefits to everyone whether they want them or need them.

 

Personal allowances are a very good part of the tax system. Letting low paid workers keep their hard earned instead of taking it and giving it back in the form of top up benefits is an efficient and sensible way of doing things. Personally I'd increase the threshold further and get rid of "tax credits" which are just benefits with another name and have nowt to do with tax.

They are getting rid of tax credits, when UC starts tax credits will eventually be replaced, it’s a bit like citizens income, your circumstances determine your minimum income which you are garanteed to get, working increases your income but decreases the amount of UC you get until it is stopped altogether. Everyone will be better off in work and be guaranteed a minimum income.

[I1L2T3]

The system we have now is being changed to a single benefit. - UC. This will (computer glitches aside of which there will be many no doubt) in theory allow claimants to work and their benefits to be adjusted dynamically according to their earnings. Of course the old system was unwieldy and created disincentives to work. UC should solve that problem. Without the need to jack up taxes to provide benefits to everyone whether they want them or need them.

 

Personal allowances are a very good part of the tax system. Letting low paid workers keep their hard earned instead of taking it and giving it back in the form of top up benefits is an efficient and sensible way of doing things. Personally I'd increase the threshold further and get rid of "tax credits" which are just benefits with another name and have nowt to do with tax.

 

The headline sell for UC is that it's simplified and I have to admit I bought into that. I even defended the idea against other lefties. It seems I was wrong - the system has become even more complex, beauracratic and prone to problems. It's a mess.

 

I would plump for citizens income with a flat rate of tax. Much simpler. People wouldn't be trapped in a crazy benefits system. Every quid they earned would be theirs minus the tax and that is a massive incentive to work more. Tax would be simple for companies to administer, even more so if national insurance was abolished and bundled in with it.

[Mister M]

Does anyone know what the taper for the UC starts at?

With the system at the moment it's like having a tax rate at 98%

[I1L2T3]

Does anyone know what the taper for the UC starts at?

With the system at the moment it's like having a tax rate at 98%

 

Any part-time workers on here who claim tax credits realise they will become UC claimants instead, subject to conditionality and forced under threat of sanctions to seek more hours?

[andygardener]

The headline sell for UC is that it's simplified and I have to admit I bought into that. I even defended the idea against other lefties. It seems I was wrong - the system has become even more complex, beauracratic and prone to problems. It's a mess.

 

I would plump for citizens income with a flat rate of tax. Much simpler. People wouldn't be trapped in a crazy benefits system. Every quid they earned would be there's minus the tax and that is a massive incentive to work more. Tax would be simple for companies to administer, even more so if national insurance was abolished and bundled in with it.

 

The website which seems to be an advocacy organisation for the CI propose a flat rate of 31% tax with no personal allowances. Which is a massive tax cut for high earners and a huge hike for low/middle earners, in order to give people 60 odd quid a week whether they want it or not. It doesn't make any sense.

 

UC will have problems of course but the basic idea is the more claimants earn the less benefit they get until they get to the point they are no longer dependant on handouts and can stand on their own feet. That seems a more sensible system than giving benefits to people on £500K a year.

 

---------- Post added 25-04-2013 at 22:57 ----------

 

Any part-time workers on here who claim tax credits realise they will become UC claimants instead, subject to conditionality and forced under threat of sanctions to seek more hours?

 

Well surely that's a good thing. I have a mate who works in HR for a supermarket and she's tearing her hair out over the number of good staff who claim benefits that have very rigid cut off points where under the old system they then lose a lot if they increase their hours towards anything like full time. This should be removed by UC and allow people to maximise their productivity to the point where they don't need benefits.