Taxpayer support

[999tigger]

Is this the person you mentioned previously??

 

For my sins Ive got experience doing pro bono work and part of that covers benefit claimants. The benefits system is complicated.

 

I cant verify what you say because you need all the facts to work out the entitlement. Because agencies dont really talk to each other, then its importnat she gets her claim checked to ensure she gets full entitlement.

 

Its often the case that the client hasnt claimed for everything.

Ofetn that the authorities have calculated things incorrectly.

 

Thast why she needs a full benefits check. She should take her documents along as they will have important details on. You should always be better off in work but there is a deliberate disincentive to work beyond certain hours because beyond a certain point you start losing virtually £ for £.

 

She also need to be very careful as it isnt just as easy as giving up work as they will prevent her from claiming because she will be considered to have made herself intentionally unemployed.

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2015 at 17:33 ----------

 

I haven't seen or talked about a report, but it obviously doesn't answer the question I asked.

 

If you read the thread then you will see the link to the report. Its up to you whether you feel you can comment about it without having read it. its the one by the Rowntree foundation.

 

If you google then you cna find the report and yes it talks about how they carried out some of the research to support their claims.

 

That such people might exist is possible, but they will be a very small number.

 

Its the contrast do you believe Ron and his annecdotal evidence or do you prefer the evidence of actual research and analysts who have gone about trying to answer the question. The report suggests that there may be people out there but they were unable to find them andif they exist they would be fewer than 1%.

[I1L2T3]

Why do they need to make cuts to in work benefits?

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2015 at 13:40 ----------

 

 

I certainly don't agree with many of the conclusions they reach. But I wouldn't accuse them of lying or failing to find evidence that is available.

 

I think the cuts are needed because it is a system that should never existed for large numbers of people. It should not be a norm and should be reserved only for certain categories of claimants.

 

That's where my agreement with the Tories ends.

 

The problem is that any cuts have to take account of reality. The reality is that the increased hours and new jobs won't magically appear. Employment rightd continue to be eroded. Housing costs will remain high. The min wage increases don't fully kick in for a while.

 

These kinds of cuts can't be made without attention to and action in other sectors of the economy.

[999tigger]

This thread is an interesting read:

 

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/legal_money_matters/2483342-tax-credits-chat-re-cuts-2016?pg=4

 

Confusion, fear, anger, a few shots of reality.

 

I will spend some time at some point and pull out threads from previous years where they professionally coach each other in how to cut hours, give up work and game the system to the max even to the point where they guided each other use benefit income to increase the amount of mortgage they could get. Now These people have had the rug pulled from under their feet.

 

I can't criticise them. Their behaviour is totally explainable and understandable. They looked at the rules and they worked out the best way to use them for themselves.

 

The Tories position is understandable too and its a huge gamble. These tax credits need to be cut big time and cut now. These kinds of cuts have to be front loaded at the start of a parliament as they can't be made in the run-up to election because of the risk.

 

The problem is it's another experiment just like Osborne's expansionary fiscal contraction. That failed. Now he is gambling that new jobs and more hours will magically appear to fill the gap created in the standard of living for those who suffer the cuts. Looking at things rationally it won't work. The cuts are big and millions of new jobs are not going to magically appear in April. The gamble is going to be lost if Osborne continues with his plans.

 

Whats the point you are making in that thread? Ive just read it obviously they are upset, but not sure what point you are trying to make or how that relates to Ron?

Just wondering whether its worth carrying on with this thread as its shifted substantially from the original point. Im just trying to make sense of where you are coming from and the points you are making before responding.

[I1L2T3]

Whats the point you are making in that thread? Ive just read it obviously they are upset, but not sure what point you are trying to make or how that relates to Ron?

Just wondering whether its worth carrying on with this thread as its shifted substantially from the original point. Im just trying to make sense of where you are coming from and the points you are making before responding.

 

The thread gives some insight into the impact this will have on people and gives, I think, a decent insight into the issues many types of claimants are facing.

 

As I mention when I have time I'll make some effort to find threads where the posters on that site coach easch other on maximising their claim capacity. That is where it fits in with what Ron is arguing. Yes it may not be possible to verify Ron's claims about multiple generations of claimants but nobody can honestly deny there are loads of people out there gaming the tax credits system.

 

As a left winger I find the tax credits system as it runs now abhorrent and that might come as a surprise but tax credits have had a rather weird impact on the employment market, especially around self-employment. They have to be phased out.

Edited October 16, 2015 by I1L2T3

[999tigger]

The thread gives some insight into the impact this will have on people and gives, I think, a decent insight into the issues many types of claimants are facing.

 

As I mention when I have time I'll make some effort to find threads where the posters on that site coach easch other on maximising their claim capacity. That is where it fits in with what Ron is arguing. Yes it may not be possible to verify Ron's claims about multiple generations of claimants but nobody can honestly deny there are loads of people out there gaming the tax credits system.

 

As a left winger I find the tax credits system as it runs now abhorrent and that come as a surprise but tax credits have had a rather weird impact on the employment market, especially around self-employment. They have to be passed out.

 

Thanks for the reply will respond over the weekend. I was just trying to get an idea where you are coming from. No need to find the other threads unless its astonishing, ill take your word they exist and i dont think it would change my answer.

[floydjones]

Is this the person you mentioned previously??

 

If you read the thread then you will see the link to the report. Its up to you whether you feel you can comment about it without having read it. its the one by the Rowntree foundation.

 

If you google then you cna find the report and yes it talks about how they carried out some of the research to support their claims.

 

That such people might exist is possible, but they will be a very small number.

 

Its the contrast do you believe Ron and his annecdotal evidence or do you prefer the evidence of actual research and analysts who have gone about trying to answer the question. The report suggests that there may be people out there but they were unable to find them andif they exist they would be fewer than 1%.

You are putting a lot of effort into avoiding the question presumably because you don't know the answer, which means you haven't read the report or it doesn't contain the answer.

 

If they think there could be some, but they can't find them, they clearly didn't look, so their 1% figure is a guess.

[999tigger]

Yes ive read the article, Ive already told you where to find it, read it and you might improve your knowledge and understand what the discussion is about. From the article you can then trace it back to source and they who, were and how they did their research.

 

I just find it surprising that you can comment on an article you havent read and are too lazy to read. If you go and read it then you can compare Rons evidence and how reliable that is against theirs.

[floydjones]

Yes ive read the article, Ive already told you where to find it, read it and you might improve your knowledge and understand what the discussion is about. From the article you can then trace it back to source and they who, were and how they did their research.

 

I just find it surprising that you can comment on an article you havent read and are too lazy to read. If you go and read it then you can compare Rons evidence and how reliable that is against theirs.

 

I haven't made a comment about an article or report, I asked a question which no one can answer, you claim the answer is in a report that you have read, but you refuse to answer the question. My conclution is that there isn't a report which contains the answer to my question because if such a report existed you would simply answer the question.

Edited October 16, 2015 by floydjones

[999tigger]

I haven't made a comment about an article or report, I asked a question which no one can answer, you claim the answer is in a report that you have read, but you refuse to answer the question. My conclution is that there isn't a report which contains the answer to my question because if such a report existed you would simply answer the question.

 

No I was hoping youd read the report, which is linked in this thread and then maybe you could have an intelligent discussion about the issue at hand. Your laziness gives you a position of ignorance. Reading the report would at least informed you of what cyclone and the thread was about. It also contains some of the methodology they used as well the names of the reserachers and the additional assisting organisations.

 

I dont care whether you agree or disagree with the report but it would be nice to think you understood the issues it raised. I dont see why I should spoon feed you, when ive already told you where to find it. Theres no point discussing a report you refuse to read.

[RonJeremy]

Yes ive read the article, Ive already told you where to find it, read it and you might improve your knowledge and understand what the discussion is about. From the article you can then trace it back to source and they who, were and how they did their research.

 

I just find it surprising that you can comment on an article you havent read and are too lazy to read. If you go and read it then you can compare Rons evidence and how reliable that is against theirs.

 

I don't claim mine is evidence - I have n proof, simply experience and knowledge of it.

I may actually have to backtrack slightly on what I said about these people having never worked - I know of families with three generations who aren't working and have hardly worked ever, not to a meaningful extent anyway. It makes no difference to the original thread, or to my point either.

There are plenty of people "swinging the lead" and it makes some people dislike all benefits claimants per se.