If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Time for less tax?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I've been thinking about this - with the amount of bloat in the public sector where taxation money is thrown away in efforts to meet more targets, would it be the time now to cut back on taxation, and also cut back on welfare. Many people are much better off relying on state welfare as they get accommodation provided and money to buy food with. Of course it's not a lot - but if you think now the average household is spending up to 75% on rent / mortgage repayments, which means many people don't even have £50 to spend on food a week, as apposed to those on state welfare who get most of their bills provided so just need to pay for food and other living expenses.
I'm not decrying 'spongers'. There may well be some who will always abuse the welfare system, but I think we need to be critical of the situation where those who stay on state welfare are better off than if they go into employment and be a contributing member of society. So far the argument has been that people should do this for some moral reason. But probably most people on here would give up their jobs if they could live an equal or better lifestyle by feeling a bit bad about not having a job and getting state benefits.
Unemployment is apparently down - but disability is up massively. Although many of these people are still able to work in some capacity, the nanny state mentality has seen that they need full support all the time.
I mean, look at me. I will hold my hands up. I'm a full time student like many of the people here, but because we have less household income I get significantly more grants and income off the government. Of course my mums not going to help me with stuff, in fact most of the time she's asking me for money. But like other students who are struggling with money, I got a summer job - I'm perfectly capable of doing so. There seems to be no distinction between myself and a student from a middle class family earning £30k (who may be paying out half of that or more on mortgage repayments), except the way the government gives out money.
I think it's to make those in power feel good, or even worse, just make up statistics about 'help' given to those who 'most' need it, so they can justify their exorbitant and bloated taxation system to the general public.
So it's a shame really that come the next general election, none of the major three parties are agreeing that it's time for tax cuts and making it one of their policies (the conservatives, who would normally be for this, are in fact arguing for more 'green' tax, which can be further dished out).
Your thoughts?
I'm not decrying 'spongers'. There may well be some who will always abuse the welfare system, but I think we need to be critical of the situation where those who stay on state welfare are better off than if they go into employment and be a contributing member of society. So far the argument has been that people should do this for some moral reason. But probably most people on here would give up their jobs if they could live an equal or better lifestyle by feeling a bit bad about not having a job and getting state benefits.
Unemployment is apparently down - but disability is up massively. Although many of these people are still able to work in some capacity, the nanny state mentality has seen that they need full support all the time.
I mean, look at me. I will hold my hands up. I'm a full time student like many of the people here, but because we have less household income I get significantly more grants and income off the government. Of course my mums not going to help me with stuff, in fact most of the time she's asking me for money. But like other students who are struggling with money, I got a summer job - I'm perfectly capable of doing so. There seems to be no distinction between myself and a student from a middle class family earning £30k (who may be paying out half of that or more on mortgage repayments), except the way the government gives out money.
I think it's to make those in power feel good, or even worse, just make up statistics about 'help' given to those who 'most' need it, so they can justify their exorbitant and bloated taxation system to the general public.
So it's a shame really that come the next general election, none of the major three parties are agreeing that it's time for tax cuts and making it one of their policies (the conservatives, who would normally be for this, are in fact arguing for more 'green' tax, which can be further dished out).
Your thoughts?
0
Comments
That's not true at all.
As far as I were aware they had their council tax bill / rent etc. paid for them.
Because that's what your post reads like tbh.
Do you tax high spend high - if you do (which we do), lots of it gets wasted on middle managers, or 'bloat' which is uneccessary but due to the lack of market pressures in the public sector there is no drive for competitiveness - you just spend the money you're given and don't worry about it. (going to the far extreme, this is where a socialist democratic party would head - taxing people a lot and then giving people back according to need)
Or do you tax low and spend low, when there are people on the bottom rungs who miss out because they need help and aren't getting it? (I.e. America where 2/5 of the population or something daft don't have medical insurance)
Or do you try and find a balance in the middle? I mean, the fact that some people are worse off if they get a job than if they stay on support as you put it is an indicator if I've ever seen one that we are catering too much. We should give people opportunities, obviously. If you cant get a job because you cant read then you can go to classes that are subsidised / free where you can learn.
But is it the responsibility of all the people in a country to support those that won't take the opportunities they are given? Life's tough when you're on the bottom rung, it's suposed to be so people try to get off it. In the next few years we're going to see rising unemployment (due to a global cooling of investment, part of the natural boom / bust cycle), and thus rising bills for the country to pay to those on benefits. And I genuinely think it's going to do more damage to the economy than good. And when money runs short, who gets hit hardest?
Those who depend on the state for their welfare.
nah i would disagree, but one things for sure NI should be scrapped and %wise should bejoined up with income tax, and the tax codes need to be simplified, but not that simplified
IF there was going to be a flat tax, it should be tax free up to £25k and 30% after
It depends. HB doesn't always cover the full amount of rent. It's supposed to be set at the average market level for that area, but IME, it's usually set too low. You get 100% discount off CT if everyone you live with is also unemployed or a student. If you live with someone who works, you only get 1/3 off. You have to cover all your other bills, except prescriptions.
Housing benefit is paid at the "market rate", which is usually set as the rent charged by a housing association, and so anyone who is renting privately will inevitably have a shortfall on their rent. Anyone under the age of 25 who is single and without children will only get paid enough HB to rent one room in a shared house- they're expected to live in a bedsit. If the property is bigger than what they need (and bear in mind that two children are expected to share a room so a 3-bed house will be deemed too big for the average family) then they get a bit lopped off. HB rarely pays the full amount.
If there is anyone who lives in the house then a bit of council tax benefit is lopped off; this is sometimes even lopped off if you have an unemployed adult child living with you.
Income support for one person is £59 per week. From that they are expected to pay for everything bar rent and council tax. Incapacity benefit starts at £61 per week. Hardly the lap of luxury.
I don't think it's time for less tax, I think it's time that taxation was spent more on the people who need it and less on those who don't. And that starts with making every single politician take a 75% pay cut- an MP should not receive more than the national average wage. It also starts with making GPs- whose average pay has rocketed to £150,000 whilst their workload has halved- pay back the money they have obtained through extortion.
And taxation loopholes should be closed so that the private equity leeches pay a fair tax, and anyone who moves their assets offshore should be deported to that country and have their UK passport confiscated. For those earning over £100,000 a new tax band of 70% should be brought in.
Wityh icome support, someone gets certain things paid for (rent, prescriptions, council tax) does this ahppen with incapacity benefit?
Just because you're capable of getting a summer job, doesn't mean every other student is.
Well if they have a disability then fair enough, but many students do and will get holiday work to supplement their income. My point was, because of my household income I'm afforded many more benefits when at the end of the day, most students will not have anything paid for them by their parents like me, and so the shortfall will have to be made up by summer work. I get more, because my household income isn't enough, but I'm still perfectly able to make up the shortfall by doing summer work.
The ones who really lose out are those who can't do summer work for whatever reason - disability etc. - but still get less income because their parents should provide. Although as I understand they may be able to claim some compensation in the form of DLA / disability benefits.
I apologize if I've painted a picture of 'those on benefits are scroungers' - I don't believe it's true at all. I do believe it's true that there is less incentive to find employment because those on benefits may have more to lose by losing out on housing benefit / income support than they could recoup in a £100 a week job (say part time). Especially if they've got children to support.
I think the way benefits are given out is unwieldy and unfair. Those living in more expensive parts of the country will lose out, those living in cheaper areas may end up able to afford more than those around them.
When I see the amount of tax revenue wasted - I think maybe tax cuts are in order so that people are better able to provide services for themselves and that the public services are forced to lose 'bloat' and become leaner and more efficient services.
Not everyone's parents can afford to do that. Mine certainly won't be able to.
I find it sad how someone so intelligent should fall into the whole "GPs are earning a forune for nothing" crap espoused by the tabloids.
It really isn't the case. Firstly because the vast majority earn less than that and secondly because to earn what they do, they have actually had to do more in each consultation.
Easy to say when you aren't living in the south east TBH
Ugh, you're missing my point. Sorry to get frustrated but you're arguing the same point as me.
Student with household income of £30k. Gets £3k maintenance loan. Parents give him/her nothing.
Student with household income of £16k. Gets £6k maintenance loan / grant along with £800+ university bursary (York give me £1400 I think). Parents give nothing.
It's not fair, the system assumes your parents will help out over a certain bracket, and that if you're under a certain bracket then you need extra help. I think it's possible if a student is sensible with money to get by on £3k non income-assessed maintenance loan + part time / summer work.
So my underlying point was that those who are deemed 'extremely needy' are actually getting far more than they need - which can make people reluctant to do things such as take up a summer job / part time work. Is this the case in other parts of the benefits system? My guess is sometimes, yes - and in my opinion it's due to the government throwing money at problems to see if they sort themselves out.
Although, for the record, the reason people from lower income families get so much extra money for going to university is because the government is trying to bribe 'working class' people into higher education and not because they genuinely need it. Although in my case my mum does pester me for money all the time so that could be a factor for some people.
Don't live in the south east then, see how easy that was?
Or shock horror, get a smaller house.
And believe it or not, as you are fully aware, wages are locally set inline with cost of living.
The easy option for a few million people whose incomes depend on jobs located in the South East.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-15214031.rsp?pa_n=1&tr_t=rent
£465
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-16956293.rsp?pa_n=1&tr_t=rent
Theres a million more, whats the prob?
Buying or renting into 75% of your income is your own fault in, I would guess, 90% of case, or more.
And tell me minime, which jobs exactly rely on you being in South East England and offered else where? I think you'll find it's the well paid ones!
If they had a job, what figure would they need to start at in order that they were better off than without income support?
Assume rent is fixed at 70per week. They have to pay for everything else.
70 hb + 59 income support = 129. So if you get a job earning £129 or less a week you're no better off whatsoever. You'll be ok for full time jobs, but if you want to do part time work forget it.
Indeed.
In fact why don't I move to Wales and...
Oh, hang on. If we all move from the South East then the house prices would increase elsewhere. So then the problem would be yours...
Do you have any idea of house prices around here?
Try this One bedroom Flat
Are they fuck.
Tell you waht, instead of me moving away from the SE, how about you move into the real world
Why is it?
For some people this isn't an option. My parents currently live in the smallest house they could possibly live in.
Believe me, most of those who struggle to pay the mortgate don't live in big houses- or indeed houses of any size. Small flats already cost a fortune.
It must have been just my employer who did not realise this and failed to raise my wages by 100% + in the last few years then.
The problem is that you have no idea what those neighbourhoods are like.
Like being a nurse in the local hospital, or a fireman in the local fire station you mean?
Or this 2bed terraced for 95K? :rolleyes:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails-14814460.rsp?pa_n=1&tr_t=buy
If buying a house takes up 75% of your income, then you can't afford to buy, simple as - but that's a different debate, isn't I? And as I said, if you go ahead anyway, its your own fault.. like a lot of people are about to find out when their cushy fixed rate deals end..
I am.
Although it's a Govt scheme and they've already tried to nick it once
Rofl, don't buy then?
Why they raise wages by 100%? Has rent gone up inline with house prices? no... so go rent :rolleyes:
My mortgage takes up maybe 30% of my income without overtime, maybe 20% if you include overtime, and less if my girlfriend continues to work part time.. and we still struggle like fuck..
So going blindly into a 75% of income/mortgage is ridiculous.