|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 3, 2022 9:41:46 GMT
For me the only logical outcome is that the same must apply to taxation. More of the tax taken from less of the people. Anything else invites the breakdown of society and chaos. I guess it's a preference. I'm not convinced that chaos would ensue because taxation revenue remains the same despite people getting richer. I don't want to live in a society where the majority of people are state dependants and so maintain their lifestyles by voting themselves more rather than producing or innovating. In fact, i think this is a pretty dangerous situation. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 3, 2022 13:28:29 GMT
It only undermines my point if you never understood what my point was. Zanygame was trying to say that we have two choices: Raise taxes or cut spending. I was pointing out that we have another option. Basically there are a vast number of people who are on out of work benefits - an all time record, whichever way you look at it. The reason that they don't work is because the state's benefit system is now competing with employment as a lifestyle. So lower these benefits. Simples. I work in benefits and council tax. That's my area of expertise. It sounds to me like you don't really understand what has happened in benefits since 2010. If you think that benefits offers some form of affluent lifestyle, you are very, very wrong. For a start, the average rent shortfall for those on housing benefit is 10%. I'm unsure where you are getting your stats from. Oh dear what a pity - a rent shortfall of 10% and they don't have an affluent lifestyle.  Nevertheless the fact is that there are a vast and increasing number of people who are on benefits. I wonder why. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 3, 2022 16:21:27 GMT
I work in benefits and council tax. That's my area of expertise. It sounds to me like you don't really understand what has happened in benefits since 2010. If you think that benefits offers some form of affluent lifestyle, you are very, very wrong. For a start, the average rent shortfall for those on housing benefit is 10%. I'm unsure where you are getting your stats from. Oh dear what a pity - a rent shortfall of 10% and they don't have an affluent lifestyle. Nevertheless the fact is that there are a vast and increasing number of people who are on benefits. I wonder why. Latest stats are available here: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dwp-benefits-statistics-august-2022/dwp-benefits-statistics-august-2022 |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 3, 2022 17:54:26 GMT
Make that 1.7 million. How many people on universal credit are unemployed?
The number of people on Universal Credit who were not working or on low earnings and required to search for work as a condition of their claim ('searching for work') has fallen by 560,000 to 1.7 millionYes, as in out of work benefits. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 3, 2022 17:58:05 GMT
I'm saying that 5.3 million people are on out-of-work benefits which is an all time record. So obviously benefits have reached the level at which they're a genuine alternative to working for a living. Some (1.7 million) of these people are classified as long-term sick apparently which is another record. No one seems to know why this figure has increased so much. It seems unlikely that they can all be victims of long Covid. It's more likely that people go a taste for doing nothing during the Covid lockdowns. It's an inference but not an unreasonable one. Perhaps someone has a better explanation for the trend? More a change in the methodology that came with universal credit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2022 21:37:49 GMT
Indeed. One of my very best friends is a Latvian national who has been here now for some 13 years or so. She has worked throughout that time, not always in well paying jobs, yet has never claimed any welfare benefits during her entire stay here. From what I see of other immigrants - both from inside and outside the EU - this seems to be the norm. That's all very interesting but you make the mistake of taking a specific example of one person and then thinking it's general (the norm). The fact is that the reason that many employers took so many people from the EU (even to the extent of only advertising their jobs in the EU) is that they were offering low wages - wages that were not attractive to indigenous workers. And the lower the wage that you work for the more likely it is that you claim benefits. And, as I've said, the majority of people are net beneficiaries of the state benefit system. So immigrant workers are less likely to pay a net amount of tax. QED. You can try to claim black is white all you like by anecdotal evidence (which may or may not be true) but the facts say that you're wrong. I used one person as an example but she is far from being the only migrant worker I have ever known as I have made clear. And you can doubt my honesty if you wish but don't expect a debate if you do |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 4, 2022 8:06:02 GMT
That's all very interesting but you make the mistake of taking a specific example of one person and then thinking it's general (the norm). The fact is that the reason that many employers took so many people from the EU (even to the extent of only advertising their jobs in the EU) is that they were offering low wages - wages that were not attractive to indigenous workers. And the lower the wage that you work for the more likely it is that you claim benefits. And, as I've said, the majority of people are net beneficiaries of the state benefit system. So immigrant workers are less likely to pay a net amount of tax. QED. You can try to claim black is white all you like by anecdotal evidence (which may or may not be true) but the facts say that you're wrong. I used one person as an example but she is far from being the only migrant worker I have ever known as I have made clear. And you can doubt my honesty if you wish but don't expect a debate if you do Your words are clearly written above. You quoted an example of one person (who's either an outlier or a liar) and then asserted it was the norm. That's very stupid when the facts show it's not the norm. And if you want to debate I suggest that it's not a good tactic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2022 8:19:45 GMT
I used one person as an example but she is far from being the only migrant worker I have ever known as I have made clear. And you can doubt my honesty if you wish but don't expect a debate if you do Your words are clearly written above. You quoted an example of one person (who's either an outlier or a liar) and then asserted it was the norm. That's very stupid when the facts show it's not the norm. And if you want to debate I suggest that it's not a good tactic. I mentioned one person and pointed out that she was typical of many I know and that this appears to be the norm as far as I can see. Most migrant workers I have ever known work. Few of them have ever claimed any benefits. But now instead of doubting my honesty you question that of my friend because it doesnt fit your narrative, which you have yet to offer any evidence of. So fuck off with your attacks on the integrity of me and those close to me which you cannot back up. Calling people liars because you don't like what they are telling you about themselves or each other is lazy and contemptible. Where are your supposed much vaunted facts? Because they do not seem to fit the pattern of migrant workers I have known and I have known many such both in my own neighbourhood and as work colleagues. The East Europeans in particular appear to have a tremendous work ethic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2022 8:37:46 GMT
Yes, as in out of work benefits. It is worth pointing out that even some of those 1.7 million required to search for work are not actually unemployed. They just have fewer than 16 working hours per week. Anyone who works for less than 16 hours is required to look for another job as a condition of welfare support. And there are many employers particularly in retail who offer less than this. My own retail employer has recently instituted a policy of offering at least 16 contracted hours to all who want that. This is because few could live on less without support but were forced to look for another job as a condition of such support. So my employer kept losing people within weeks of taking them on because of this, hence the policy change. They used to hire people on piddly little 7 hour contracts so they'd be available for all the overtime, but they couldnt hang on to these people. Anyway, not all of those 1.7 million are going to be unemployed. Many of them will be in work on contracts guaranteeing less than 16 hours per week. Such is the economy and job market in 21st century Britain |
|
