Home Politics & Debate

Benefit Reforms - Universal Credit

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    How many kids do they have then?

    7 and another on the way. Now I can see why 1 parent needs to remain at home, but 3....?

    Perhaps a cap on rent (as in how much land lords can charge) or building affordable social housing and/or a living wage for the lower paid jobs would begin to be an incentive to get people in to work. Or making companies like Vodafone pay the billions of taxes the owe, to help rebuild the economy.

    I agree with both of those things. Like I said before, I don't and never will begrudge people being given a helping hand either to top up their wages or if they've fallen on bad times.

    Big Gay, I wasn't generalising. I was pointing out when asked a specific example of a family who do sit around doing nothing and getting paid for it. If I'd said something like all benefit claimants are scrounging scum then my example would be assisting in my generalisation.

    I never said all benefit claimants were scroungers, just that I am annoyed and resentful of those that are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Crocs are ugly, but that doesn't mean we should punish all shoe wearers because somebody wears crocs. LOLJK
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't quite understand why lots of people seem to be leaping onto this reform as instantly being a bad thing and picking on the poor in society.

    Yes, it will mean some changes for those on benefits, but why should those people be completely exempt from the changes that those in employment are experiencing?

    From what I can see the changes will help support families on benefits who are willing to work by making sure that working is always more financially rewarding than being on benefits - how can that be a bad thing?

    Yes, tied in with that there's now going to be some kind of penalty for people who consistently turn down work, but that's not actually that different from the current system with JSA - and if there wasn't it strikes me that the system would be slightly taking the piss. Here you go, have free money from the government and don't worry about trying to earn any.

    Yes, the new system needs to make sure that it allows for people who are too ill to work, and that it protects children, but I haven't seen anything in it that says it won't. Think we should be careful before critising something just because its a change.

    I know a family who live entirely on benefits and actually think the new system sounds like it could be very good. Both parents with health problems and 3 kids and at the moment if one or both of them feels up to working a bit, or even fulltime, they are very wary of doing so because as soon as they get an income from work they lose most of their benefits so actually take a household income cut, and know that if the health problems flair again (as both tend to do) they'll be stuck without being able to work and having to drag way back through complicated benefits system and be very very short while that happens.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »

    That article is overflowing with speculation.

    My very limited understanding of that particular case is that the tax authorities have agreed a sum that is legally due from Vodafone.

    Furthermore, it may (or may not) be true that Vodafone have not yet paid HMRC the particular sum but they have accepted liability for it and that strongly suggests that there will no need to "make them pay" as you previously said. (Not to mention your later inference that they are "getting away without paying their taxes").
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, it will mean some changes for those on benefits, but why should those people be completely exempt from the changes that those in employment are experiencing?

    If, indeed, we are all in this together then logically we all have to take a pay cut.

    (A very big if ;) )
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Crocs are ugly, but that doesn't mean we should punish all shoe wearers because somebody wears crocs. LOLJK

    And I haven't suggested we punish all benfits claimants either.

    The current system is a mess, a system that means you get paid more in some circumstances for doing nothing than someone who goes out to work is perverse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Crocs are ugly, but that doesn't mean we should punish all shoe wearers because somebody wears crocs. LOLJK

    Are you suggesting that ugliness should be punished (so long as any benefits derived therefrom are left untouched)?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    7 and another on the way. Now I can see why 1 parent needs to remain at home, but 3....?

    Big Gay, I wasn't generalising. I was pointing out when asked a specific example of a family who do sit around doing nothing and getting paid for it. If I'd said something like all benefit claimants are scrounging scum then my example would be assisting in my generalisation.

    I never said all benefit claimants were scroungers, just that I am annoyed and resentful of those that are.

    How much of their situation do you really know? You remind me of someone who once said to me, that I'm not really that disabled and that I shouldn't be receiving the disability benefits that I do.

    They really should leave disabled people alone - they've toyed with the idea of giving DLA to LAs to pay for our care - nice to see that they think LAs know better. Does this mean I'll get the help I've asked for, if that was to happen? I seriously doubt it. If they do bring this universal credit in, does this mean that they'll sort out the mess that is the medical assessments, and have people doing them who know what they're doing? or are they just worried about saving (they're not saving money though - not after all the appeals) money?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    They really should leave disabled people alone

    If that really happened then surely disabled people would be in a worse position, would they not ? (The default position being zero)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If that really happened then surely disabled people would be in a worse position, would they not ? (The default position being zero)

    Well, they should stop forcing them to get back to work. (it seems now that unless you're dead, you can work. There was a story a few weeks ago about a deafblind, who can't walk or talk who was found fit for work - doing what?)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    There was a story a few weeks ago about a deafblind, who can't walk or talk who was found fit for work - doing what?)

    Theme park zombie ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    RubberSkin wrote: »
    Theme park zombie ?

    lol
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What would happen if vodafone didn't exist or didn't owe this tax money?

    Yes it would be nice and we would be able to spend more on people who need it but the government needs to budget for the money it has, not what it wishes it had. I'm all for benefits in the cases of people who need them, but the simple matter is that if people are saying that we could avoid cuts if vodafone paid a tax bill, why not help those who need it more by reducing the benefits bill to people who don't actually need it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry... Have not been able to get to a PC!

    The point I intended to make is that a lot of tax has gone unpaid (not just Vodafone, but people using offshore accounts), but then the people who are being punished tends to be the most vulnerable. I honestly don't know if we claimed the tax back, the welfare state would not be cut quite so brutally, as I think that the intent goes deeper than slashing spending...

    It would be interesting to see, but it won't be seen. :no:

    But it would hold a greater argument against the cuts than just the basic right for the less wealthy to have a roof over their head, to afford their heating bill, to be able to eat... Because at the moment so many people don't seem to give a shit, or understand how hard it already is for some individuals.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    They really should leave disabled people alone - they've toyed with the idea of giving DLA to LAs to pay for our care - nice to see that they think LAs know better. Does this mean I'll get the help I've asked for, if that was to happen? I seriously doubt it. If they do bring this universal credit in, does this mean that they'll sort out the mess that is the medical assessments, and have people doing them who know what they're doing? or are they just worried about saving (they're not saving money though - not after all the appeals) money?
    They outsource their medical assessments to ATOS, don't they? I had an assessment with them before starting work for a government department... If the service other people receive was as bad as mine, I feel bad for them...

    I was assessed because I declared that I have a mental illness and a disability which, in the context of my job, would have meant a little more support on the learning side and more time for administration. The woman assessing me had no qualifications, was patronising and in the end told me she didn't know if I could handle my job... I was made to feel like shit (and for the record I got a temporary promotion because I can do my job), for having a disability...

    I cannot imagine how stressful it must be, having an assessment for ESA. How can the government expect people to come back in to such a competitive job market when they have a gap in their CV and may have to declare a disability? Then say if they don't get a job in a year their housing benefits will be cut?

    From April 2012, people under 35 with no dependants, will only be entitled to enough housing benefit to cover the average cost of a room in a house share in the area (this currently applies to under 25s)... So if somebody is made redundant and has their own flat and no savings, what are they to do?

    Shelter's Page

    Meh... So much to moan about. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    From April 2012, people under 35 with no dependants, will only be entitled to enough housing benefit to cover the average cost of a room in a house share in the area (this currently applies to under 25s)... So if somebody is made redundant and has their own flat and no savings, what are they to do?

    The government doesn't care. I don't understand why it's gone up to 35. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a shared house when I'm in my 30s.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    The point I intended to make is that a lot of tax has gone unpaid (not just Vodafone, but people using offshore accounts), but then the people who are being punished tends to be the most vulnerable. I honestly don't know if we claimed the tax back, the welfare state would not be cut quite so brutally, as I think that the intent goes deeper than slashing spending...

    It is unclear to me which unpaid tax you make reference to.

    If a person (real or otherwise) were to make use of a tax-free instrument then it is a stretch of the imagination to call it unpaid tax.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is unclear to me which unpaid tax you make reference to.

    If a person (real or otherwise) were to make use of a tax-free instrument then it is a stretch of the imagination to call it unpaid tax.
    Sorry... I meant tax evasion...
    "There are some people who seem to believe that not paying their fair share of tax is a lifestyle choice that is socially acceptable," he said.

    "Just like the benefit cheat, they take resources from those who need them most. Tax avoidance and evasion are unacceptable in the best of times but in today's circumstances it is morally indefensible.

    "We will be ruthless with those often wealthy people and businesses who think they can treat paying tax as an optional extra."

    Tax evasion and avoidance cost the Treasury an estimated £14bn a year and successive governments have vowed to take action against it.BBC

    The TUC brought out a report in 2008, about tax avoidance from wealthy and corporations costing £25 billion loss in assets per year.

    I don't think they have one which is from the 2010, as the report is almost 2 years old, but it's still interesting to read.

    But again, it will be interesting who ends up worse up... Or are you defending the changes to the benefits system and if so, why?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Sorry... I meant tax evasion...

    The TUC brought out a report in 2008, about tax avoidance from wealthy and corporations costing £25 billion loss in assets per year.

    That was Danny Alexander doing what his sort do best, engaging the mob (Nuremburg rally like).
    "There are some people who seem to believe that not paying their fair share of tax is a lifestyle choice that is socially acceptable," he said.

    "Just like the benefit cheat, they take resources from those who need them most. Tax avoidance and evasion are unacceptable in the best of times but in today's circumstances it is morally indefensible.

    "We will be ruthless with those often wealthy people and businesses who think they can treat paying tax as an optional extra."

    Tax evasion and avoidance cost the Treasury an estimated £14bn a year and successive governments have vowed to take action against it.BBC

    I suspect that Mr Alexander has sufficient legal knowledge to know that what he said in that speech was legally indefensible.

    If, for example, in pandering to the crowd, he engaged in rhetoric such as "criminal drug dealers", do you think he would use Boots or Lloyds as examples (even if he is perhaps just as justified in doing so) ?

    I contend that Mr. Alexander is very knowledgable of UK tax laws. (I offer the following in evidence : http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/30/alexander-replaces-laws-at-treasury )
Sign In or Register to comment.