You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
There is the usual tripe going around the internet, sample below:
Politics for the every day man!!!
Just one bit of politics from me, one bit only. A lot of this election is being based on tax payments and how the rich should pay more and how this isn't fair and that isn't fair.
But....if you came from nothing and grafted like mad, worked that overtime, did that extra shift, took that gamble on going for that job and coped with the stress that went with it, is it then fair to have to pay for generations of people on welfare, with no intention of working, of having child after child who in turn have numerous children all on welfare who all moan about the amount of tax rich people pay?
Our welfare system is awesome for those that need it, but like our NHS system it's been abused.
So am I a Tory, am I ****, look at the state of the country, will I vote Labour? Will I ****, Corbyn and Abbott?? Please!
Much of this is easy to pick apart but I wanted to get an estimate of what these perceived ****less layabouts cost us. Is there a measure of the fabled "persistently unemployed" and how much of the budget they use up?
This visual is really helpful http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/
1% of welfare budget goes on unemployment. I imagine that doesn't cover long term unemployed so those figures will be mixed up with benefits given to people who work on low incomes
The bulk of welfare spending is pensions.
I don't know any actual facts but the spawn and his wife of the ****ing bitch that my dad married has not worked since the early 80s.
They have a house provided and I'm told a new (whether it's brand new I don't know) car every 3 years.
He apparently has a bad back but that doesn't stop him being able to do house removals.
I have more facts on this tale.
An English man married an Australian and was living out there. He developed a serious heart complaint and had to leave australia to get free treatment here.
As he was disabled he was housed and given a car as well as his treatment.
They were then given free IVF. A child was born and they were rehoused. More IVF another child and a bigger house and car.
And people like zippy here, are how the bullshit over facts world that we live in now, persists.
Slackboy - that is a great start cheers. I have spent some time in areas of the northeast where there are actually no jobs whatsoever and have a fair amount of sympathy for people in those communities.
The next step is to estimate the number of actual layabouts as per zippkona's experience, I expect we all know one or two, but it would be good to know what proportion of the population they are.
You're shitting me, right?
I realise there are plenty of cases like the one zippykona describes above. Many of us probably know of one or two "undeserving" cases of people that screw the system. It's not excusable - it is cheating.
They're a useful distraction and easily demonised. We can blame them for our ills because they're visible and they annoy the rest of us who go out and earn a living and pay our way. As Channel 4 and Five have shown, they make for entertaining poverty porn TV too.
There are bigger fish to fry if we want to spend less or get more money into the pot.
deadly, that is exactly my point.
And more importantly
Many of us probably know of one or two "undeserving" cases of people that screw the system. It's not excusable - it is cheating.
You must accurately know that the one or two scroungers you know of are actually undeserving. Because you have seen their claim forms and know their situation intimately?
I don't know any actual facts but...
OK from slackboys link
As for out of work people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance and Universal Credit, there were 760,200 people claiming these benefits in January 2016
My assumption/bias is that the vast majority of these people have a valid reason for claiming. What I would like is an estimate of what percentage of the 760200 are the actual type of people that should be hated for their resistance to the work ethic. Then we can multiply this number by the cost per person of JSA and UC and see what all the fuss is about.
is it then fair to have to pay for generations of people on welfare, with no intention of working
The [url= https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/are-cultures-worklessness-passed-down-generations ]Rowntree Foundation did some research on multigenerational unemployment[/url]. They found that there were almost no families where three consecutive generations haven't worked, and even two generations was rare.
But, the myth sells a lot of copies of the Daily Mail.
How much do in-work benefits, essentially a subsidy to employers who don't pay a true living wage, cost us?
You could argue that a pool of unemployed people who are looking for work helps keep costs down for all of us as it lowers wages thus keeping the cost of the things we buy lower.
What we really ought to be looking at is what subsidising employment costs us. 'In work' benefits paid to those on low wages - a direct subsidy by the state of employers who then pay employees an amount they cannot afford to live on.
Well said wwaswas 🙂
I do feel there's some scapegoating going on, are there some cheats, I don't doubt it for a second.
My issue is with them representing a small number in terms of welfare spending, and the poorly targeted sanctions and benefit cuts that do damage to genuine people. That does real social damage to save welfare costs of a relative pittance.
Don't hate the player, hate the game as they say in the hood.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/02/workless-families-convenient-truth-editorial ]myth of workless familes [/url]
from the article if you can't be bothered:
But two-generational worklessness is far rarer – workless parents and grown-up children are found together in only 0.9% of households. As for homes with two generations that have never worked, the fraction drops further, to less than 0.1% of the total.
The truly double-generation long-term unemployed family is, then, a rare species. As for the politicians' "third-generation" perma-idlers, these are on the critically endangered list – if not entirely fictional
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation set out to identify and investigate 20 such "never-worked" families in deprived Glasgow and Teesside, but it found not a single one.
Not to mention housing benefit going straight to private landlords.
Remeber also that unemployment is at its lowest level for 40 years accordinvg the government. If welfare spending is going up, its not because of unemployed folk. It will be because of benefit payments to those in work who don't get paid enough to survive, pensions and social care.
If everyone unemployed went to work it would make F all difference to the situation we are in regarding the affordability of the welfare state.
Oddly, the one thing that might help is a massive influx of working age immigrants to boost productivity and tax revenue who then go home to retire in 30 years time.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/19/uk-needs-more-immigrants-to-avoid-brexit-catastrophe
All great points, I am now well armed for my facebook assault on my frothing tory/brexit family members thanks.
However one point I do not get
Not to mention housing benefit going straight to private landlords.
I'm not sure I agree with the meaning of this - 50% of JSA spend per claimant goes on food and necessities - ie straight in to TESCo's bank account, nobody complains about this.
Housing benefit only goes to landlords because the govt didn't build council houses, should they also build council supermarkets?
Remeber also that unemployment is at its lowest level for 40 years accordinvg the government
The problem is, they aren't comparing apples to apples over the last 40 years, IMO. I think I'm right in saying that people on "zero hour contracts" are being classed as employed, for example.
Fact of the day.
55% of people who are classified as living in poverty come from a household where at least one person has a full time job.
The problem is, they aren't comparing apples to apples over the last 40 years, IMO. I think I'm right in saying that people on "zero hour contracts" are being classed as employed, for example.
That's true, but we cannot class these people as workshy scumbags, so it suits my needs to class them as employed even if morally they are not..
I must be bull shiter too as I have similar relations to Zippy.
My dad remarried to a woman who has never worked because she is disabled (one leg an inch shorter than the other from Polio). She has 3 children, two sons and a daughter.
The eldest of the sons works and has 3 kids and his partner is unemployed, The youngest of the kids has just finished basic for the navy. The other two have never had a job since leaving school.
The youngest son has 4 kids, two sons and two daughters. He has never worked and neither had two of his three partners. One son has job at Sainsburys, the other is still in education, there mother works. The two daughters have never worked, one has two kids (she got pregnant at 15) and the other is pregnant at the moment.
The daughter, the eldest of them all has 8 kids to god knows how many partners. She has never worked. The of the 5 that are of working age none have. Three of these daughters have taken after their mother are in a continuous state of pregnancy, whilst the sons are impregnating anything with a pulse.
They all bleat on about having no jobs whilst not looking for them either, their homes are destroyed by them and the kids but they don't care because the council will fix it eventually or they'll get another soon.
They are three generations into state hand outs as a way of life with the fourth already on its way.
My two brothers on the other hand both have Cerebral Palsy, had some real nasty jobs in the past but only one has ever been unemployed for less than 6 months.
I don't know any actual facts but...
...I reckon...
Think about it this way.
In the last 12 months I think I got JSA for 6 of them.
That's £73 a week I cost the country (plus 10 minutes of the JC+'s time each week and probably some backroom paperwork). That doesn't even cover a decent food shop, let alone a cost of living any sort of life, it's a token. And claiming that wasn't easy, I've a masters degree in engineering and know how to read/write contracts but even I couldn't figure out why I was being docked some weeks.
Now the kind of people you meet at the JC+, yes some of them (a vanishingly small proportion) seem to have stumbled straight in off the Jeremy Kyle set. But most of them are just normal people at their wits end with a run of bad luck being compounded by whatever state help they were getting being taken away. Without fail I think there was at least one person crying every week.
Even once you've filled in all the paperwork, you get a letter back saying "we agree that you have done everything required to claim JSA, however we won't be backdating it for the past week that you missed because you're not dead and therefore clearly didn't need it".
I got no housing benefit or council tax relief because that doesn't kick in until you're effectively homeless.
So in summary (Zippy et. al.) if you think there's some sort of free ride available, then why don't you quit your job and join the gravy train. You'd be an idiot not to.
In work benefits are a good thing. It helps to give extra money to those in need. Take two people on a low paid job. Someone with 2 kids needs more money than a single 22 yo working the same job low paid job. If the job paid enough to not for someone supporting two kids then the single 22 yo would be earning as much as someone who had years of training and experience. Makes the extra Hassel less worth while to train.
I also think it is safe to assume* that tax avoidance by corporations smashes benefit fraud into financial insignificance.
*(assuming as I do not have facts, but happy to be corrected)
55% of people who are classified as living in poverty come from a household where at least one person has a full time job.
Definitition of poverty includes comparison of income to national average so when pensions increase so does the number of people in poverty. Definition also includes things like having enough money to take the kids swimming once a week
£73 a week I cost the country (plus 10 minutes of the JC+'s time each week and probably some backroom paperwork). That doesn't even cover a decent food shop
For one person £73 is a massive weekly food shop! Agreed it's not a lot for all expenses but your claim it's not a decent food shop is rediculous. Don't spend that much between 2.5 people
I must be bull shiter too as I have similar relations to Zippy.
There are some people who take the piss. That doesn't mean that they're the norm.
Definition also includes things like having enough money to take the kids swimming once a week
What an absolute extravagance!
"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prisons..."
"And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir..."
My wife helps to run the local food bank, with up to 20 people/couples/families coming for help each week. Every couple of weeks, someone who fits the tabloid stereotype uses the food bank, but generally they're all people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own.
Definitition of poverty includes...(and so on, including some unrelated, and unsubstantiated Jambafacts)...
The "definitions" are variable, the govt measures both relative and absolute, and before and after housing costs.
For one person £73 is a massive weekly food shop! Agreed it's not a lot for all expenses but your claim it's not a decent food shop is rediculous. Don't spend that much between 2.5 people
Stella and fags don't come cheep.
But in all serious £73 goes nowhere. Just to have a car sat on the driveway cost £12 a week in tax and insurance. And to save money I got the bus to the JC+, so we're already down to £56 or so.
Say I'm lucky and get an interview (depressingly unrealistic as it turned but hey we're in a post truth world here) 20 miles of petrol costs another £4. So now were down into the low 50's already and I've still not been shopping.
My share of the council tax is £25/week.
A mobile phone and internet connection so I can look for a job, even if the 'TV' part for the BT bill is ignored that's £40 a month from me for half the line rental, basic broadband and a £10/month mobile sim. £10/week
Shit I'm down to £15
Electricity
Gas
Water
Bollocks, better sell a bike to cover those this month.
The mortgage - errrrrrrrr
And I've still not been to Tesco.
Never was the phrase [i]get on your bike[/i] more apt! 🙂20 miles of petrol costs another £4.
Never was the phrase get on your bike more apt!
Because that's practical in an interview suit :p
And a few lines later;
Bollocks, better sell a bike to cover those this month.
I did actually sell my commuter
thisisnotaspoon - MemberNow the kind of people you meet at the JC+, yes some of them (a vanishingly small proportion) seem to have stumbled straight in off the Jeremy Kyle set. But most of them are just normal people at their wits end with a run of bad luck being compounded by whatever state help they were getting being taken away. Without fail I think there was at least one person crying every week.
This, all the way. My job centre's in a fairly shitty area too. Yep some pisstakers, and some unintentionally unemployable (the girl in her PJs who didn't understand why it was a problem that she was 30 minutes late- she wasn't taking the piss, she just didn't get it), but mostly employable people who want to work. The 10 week review meeting they make you do is like the distillation of the job centre experience- achieves absolutely nothing except for making people more desperate, including the staff.
I think no matter how much of a horrible **** you are, you couldn't keep sneering at the unemployed after a few weeks of this. Well there's exceptions to every rule and I bet they'd be very proud to be the exception but if you're a functioning human being you see it as it is.
Now the kind of people you meet at the JC+, yes some of them (a vanishingly small proportion) seem to have stumbled straight in off the Jeremy Kyle set. But most of them are just normal people at their wits end with a run of bad luck being compounded by whatever state help they were getting being taken away. Without fail I think there was at least one person crying every week.
this!
made redundant in 2013 and it was an eye opening experience,
claiming benefits is not easy!!, you can get sanctioned seemingly at random at any point
Hounslow job centre has to be one of the most depressing places in the world,
I distinctly remember 1 young lad looking for any excuse not to have to do kitchen work (allergic to heat 😉 )
Virtually everyone there was trying to figure out how to get out of the trap they were in.
got sent on a jobskills & cv course, big array of people there that I got to know, class of 20 every one of them wanted a job, quite a few had been drafted in to the olympics but had found nothing since then, varrying levels of education, same story of sending out cv after cv to get turned down for a minimum wage job that still didnt pay enough
Definition also includes things like having enough money to take the kids swimming once a week
yeah kids shouldnt be allowed to exercise!
even better try finding a council pool that isnt full up by 10am on a saturday!
Still its easier to talk about the definition of poverty being to vague than to think that there might be hungry children out there with shit lives that we could be helping, but choose not to, because.... Austerity
That's £73 a week I cost the country (plus 10 minutes of the JC+'s time each week and probably some backroom paperwork). That doesn't even cover a decent food shop
You will get hell of a lot more for £73 at Lidl or Aldi than at Sainsburys, I can tell you that much! I suspect the same could be said compared to Tesco and possibly even Asda.
It might also be worth getting an NUS card if anyone in the family meets the criteria that might not be as strict as you expect, they give 10% off at Co-Op for a start.
Normally in "drive to" locations. An extra cost even if you have to take the bus.Lidl or Aldi
The 10 week review meeting they make you do is soul destroying for absolutely everyone involved including the staff...I think no matter how much of a horrible **** you are, you couldn't keep sneering at the unemployed after a few weeks of this. Well there's exceptions to every rule and I bet they'd be very proud to be the exception but if you're a functioning human being you see it as it is.
absolutely
when all those Tory MPs were trying to pretend I, Daniel Blake was just made up, it really shone a light on how unpleasant and detached they are
You will get hell of a lot more for £73 at Lidl or Aldi than at Sainsburys, I can tell you that much! I suspect the same could be said compared to Tesco and possibly even Asda.It might also be worth getting an NUS card if anyone in the family meets the criteria that might not be as strict as you expect, they give 10% off at Co-Op for a start.
OK, can I re-phrase that to "doesn't even go as far as a decent food shop". Otherwise it's a ****ing red herring.
There is no way, on heaven or earth, that anyone can live in a house and survive on £73/week.
Yes you could pack up and go bivi'ing in the woods, and live off instant noodles and get scurvy. But that doesn't exactly help your job prospects.
But in all serious £73 goes nowhere.
You refferd to a decent food shop. I explicitly said I realise that it is not alot for all expenses. To be fair it's not designed to keep you in a lifestyle but to keep you going for a bit.
The thing is 10% of **** all is still **** all. As with redefining what poverty is, I don't care if its £73 a week or £140 a week, both are vanishingly small in the context of today's costs, and the hourly rates of the well off.
I would define poverty at anything less than min wage for an adult (6.7 x 40) = 268, less tax and NI. Otherwise what does min wage mean if not just enough to keep you out of poverty?
it's not designed to keep you in a lifestyle but to keep you going for a bit.
If you paid it at 00:01 on Monday morning, by my reckoning I'd spent it on just living expenses (mortgage, fuel, food, car, phone, etc) by 15:20 on Tuesday.
Now, I didn't starve to death because I'm nice and middle class and had seen the shit heading towards the fan so had enough savings to see me through those 6 months. But if I was one of the "just about managing" I'd have been screwed. If I lots my new (considerably worse paid than before) job now, I'd be in trouble pretty much straight away this time.
For anyone that want's to see what it's like. Donate all but £150 of your next paycheck to shelter, and see how you're doing in 4 weeks time. Yes that's not a typo, you don't get anything for the first fortnight so better stock up on food and fill the car with petrol before you start that experiment.
I also think it is safe to assume* that tax avoidance by corporations smashes benefit fraud into financial insignificance.*(assuming as I do not have facts, but happy to be corrected)
Difficult to have facts as you're looking for things that someone has hidden.
I do have a story from an old job where the Director played golf with the Directors of other small business. They all passed made up invoices for smallish sums to each other, the invoices disguised cash withdrawals that went to the Director as an untaxed bonus. In the grand scheme of things it was low sums of a few hundred pounds a time.
Companies were all small enough that auditing of accounts was minimal and it never cropped up when the accounts were sent off each year.
No idea how common that is, VAT fraud is probably more common, but again how do you know, run a new laptop through the company and not pay VAT as it's a "work" item, despite being given to Directors son for University work.
5plusn8 - MemberOtherwise what does min wage mean if not just enough to keep you out of poverty?
The minimum wage isn't calculated based on need or the cost of living, or to keep people out of poverty.
The Living Wage (not Osborne's bullshit but the actual living wage) is currently £8.45 per hour.
So the min wage is below poverty then? (Mine was an assumption - that the "minimum" part of the concept being the minimum needed to survive, it is a shame that I am wrong in that assumption.)
I do have a story from an old job where the Director played golf with the Directors of other small business. They all passed made up invoices for smallish sums to each other, the invoices disguised cash withdrawals that went to the Director as an untaxed bonus. In the grand scheme of things it was low sums of a few hundred pounds a time.
I don't get how this would work? Tax would be paid on the invoiced income whether it was corporate or personal.
[i]I also think it is safe to assume* that tax avoidance by corporations smashes benefit fraud into financial insignificance.
*(assuming as I do not have facts, but happy to be corrected)[/i]Difficult to have facts as you're looking for things that someone has hidden.
I do have a story from an old job where the Director played golf with the Directors of other small business. They all passed made up invoices for smallish sums to each other, the invoices disguised cash withdrawals that went to the Director as an untaxed bonus. In the grand scheme of things it was low sums of a few hundred pounds a time.
Companies were all small enough that auditing of accounts was minimal and it never cropped up when the accounts were sent off each year.
No idea how common that is, VAT fraud is probably more common, but again how do you know, run a new laptop through the company and not pay VAT as it's a "work" item, despite being given to Directors son for University work.
I'm not excusing any fraud but small business fraud like that or cash in hand self employed pails into insignificance against the corporate avoidance which whilst legal is morally just as bad.
I don't get how this would work? Tax would be paid on the invoiced income whether it was corporate or personal.
That's because it's a [i]story[/i]
For anybody that can look at things objectively, without prejudice, unemployment costs are clearly a non-issue.
Having zero unemployment would be far worse with staff shortages, increased wages etc,. Exactly why we rely on immigration already.
Backed up by the report out today that we actually need immigration of 200,000 but nobody wants to tell the people who don't want to listen.
I don't get how this would work? Tax would be paid on the invoiced income whether it was corporate or personal.
Fake invoice matched to cash wiwithdrawal - director doesn't pay tax on the "bonus" as no one ever knows he got it.
Company paid £300, for example, on Grounds Maintenace. Company is profitable so there's no effect on the overall figures.
Company remains small enough to qualify for audit exemption and as it's a Private Limited Company where the Director is the sole Shareholder the Shareholder won't be asking for an audit.
Small scale but like the storys of benefit fraud I have no idea how common it is.
That's because it's a story
Same kind of [i]story[/i] as you disfuntional, multiple disablility, rpaidly breeding familiy 🙂
They're all atories.
Having zero unemployment would be far worse with staff shortages, increased wages etc,
Far worse for who exactly?
The industry I worked in had a shortage of qualified staff in the 90's and 00's. Loads of jobs, good payrises, rapid promotion and being in the position to say "**** you" and walk away from a job you didn't like.
It was very good.
There is still a staff shortage but not as it was.
Fake invoice matched to cash wiwithdrawal - director doesn't pay tax on the "bonus" as no one ever knows he got it.
The person that issued the invoice has to pay tax on the payment of the invoice. If the director thinks that under an investigation that won't get found out, he may as well just cash £300 and put it down to petty cash or sundries. It doesn't sound like a real tax scam.
For anybody that can look at things objectively, without prejudice, unemployment costs are clearly a non-issue.aving zero unemployment would be far worse with staff shortages, increased wages etc,. Exactly why we rely on immigration already.
Backed up by the report out today that we actually need immigration of 200,000 but nobody wants to tell the people who don't want to listen.
IDK.
In 6 months I lost out on about £15,000, HMRC lost out on another £10,000 or so (PAYE + employers NI). An employer didn't make any money out of my time at $110/hour (more to HMRC, and paying for all the support staff like managers, HR, secretaries, catering, cleaners).
Now there's reasons beyond the UK government why I was unemployed (other governments policy mostly), but the cost to the economy of me being unemployed makes the £73/week pale into insignificance. Back of a fag packet that's about £85k of lost GDP, which would be almost entirely exported. I doubt there was much of an economic upside to me being unemployed.
I agree that unemployment will never hit 0%, but that's because the market won't let it (wages rise, leading to greater automation or un-competitiveness, immigration goes up attracted by wages etc) but it shouldn't be policy.
The ideal (IMO) would be stable short term unemployment with very low long term unemployment. People will always be losing their jobs, but you want an equal number being created and a quick turnarround for those affected.
Now in a different system, say with an unlimited budget for re-training I could probably have done an MSc in something related but different enough to my old job, and gone back into the workforce at even better pay and probably pay off the investment in qualifications in ~6 months of tax. Whereas now I'm doing a lowest common denominator job (no qualifications required, just intelligence) for a friend of a friend and paying only about £200 in tax each month. so overall the economy is losing out as a result of only paying £73/week.
Nasty vicious officious bastards at Jobcentre+, you say?
So the min wage is below poverty then? (Mine was an assumption - that the "minimum" part of the concept being the minimum needed to survive, it is a shame that I am wrong in that assumption.)
Correct.
The minimum wage was just what was a normal low paid job at the time IIRC. Subsequently charities have calculated what they call the 'living wage' which is how much you actally need to live on. Something like £10/h in London I think.
Now, under pressure to raise the minimum wage to the living wage, Osborne put the minimum wage up slightly and rebranded it the living wage, despite it still not being the actual living wage i.e. enough to live on.
being in the position to say "**** you" and walk away from a job you didn't like
This is why having a pool of unemployed people helps businesses, and helps keep workers rights down.
Many of us probably know of one or two "undeserving" cases of people that screw the system.
Can't say I do.
Same kind of story as you disfuntional, multiple disablility, rpaidly breeding familiy
If only it was 🙁
I agree with you on the VAT fraud using company assets for personal use and rampant on this forum too. False invoices to get a couple of hundred out isn't worth the hassle or the risk for getting caught usually grassed up by a disgruntled employee like yourself.
I agree with you on the VAT fraud using company assets for personal use. False invoices to get a couple of hundred out isn't worth the hassle or the risk for getting caught usually grassed up by a disgruntled employee like yourself.
I still don't see how it would work, surely the recipient of the invoice has to declare that income, pay corporation tax, vat and everything else before withdrawing the money, just like the original person?
I'm sure most small business owners bend the truth slightly to claim back a bit more (even a work PC used for STW posting and not declared it as being for personal use too?) but getting their overall tax rate down to anywhere near what big corporations manage would be far fetched.
Why don't we all just work 4 days a week and share the work out more evenly?
Who decided 5 days per week was the normal right amount to work?
[i]The correlative of the State’s undertaking to ensure adequate benefit for unavoidable interruption of earnings, however long, is enforcement of the citizen’s obligation to seek and accept all reasonable opportunities of work, to co-operate in measures designed to save him from habituation to idleness, and to take all proper measures to be well. The higher the benefits provided out of a common fund for unmerited misfortune, the higher must be the citizen’s sense of obligation not to draw upon that fund unnecessarily.
This general principle leads to the following practical conclusions:
(i) Men and women in receipt of unemployment benefit cannot be allowed to hold out indefinitely for work of the type to which they are used or in their present places of residence, if there is work which they could do available at the standard wage for that work.
(ii) Men and women who have been unemployed for a certain period should be required as a condition of continued benefit to attend a work or training centre, such attendance being designed both as a means of preventing habituation to idleness and as a means of improving capacity for earning. Incidentally, though this is an altogether minor reason for the proposal, such a condition is the most effective way of unmasking the relatively few persons who may be suspected of malingering, who have perhaps some concealed means of earning which they are combining with an appearance of unemployment. The period after which attendance should be required need not be the same at all times or for all persons. It might be extended in times of high unemployment and reduced in times of good employment; six months for adults would perhaps be a reasonable average period of benefit without conditions. But for young persons who have not yet the habit of continuous work the period should be shorter; for boys and girls there should ideally be no unconditional benefit at all; their enforced abstention from work should be made an occasion of further training.
(iii) The measures for control of claims to disability benefit—both by certification and by sick visiting—will need to be strengthened, in view of the large increases proposed in the scale of compulsory insurance benefit and the possibility of adding to this substantially by voluntary insurance through Friendly Societies.
[/i]
Beveridge Report, 1942
I still don't see how it would work, surely the recipient of the invoice has to declare that income, pay corporation tax, vat and everything else before withdrawing the money, just like the original person?I'm sure most small business owners bend the truth slightly to claim back a bit more (even a work PC used for STW posting and not declared it as being for personal use too?) but getting their overall tax rate down to anywhere near what big corporations manage would be far fetched.
Assuming the supplier of the invoice would have a similar expense cancelling each other out. A lot of work for not much gain.
I know someone who took the money they got for being a married-but-single-mum to two kids with no house and bought a Audi A3 Black Edition 2.0 TDI and was such a high risk on the finance they had to install a black box she puts a code into every time it starts - the code lasts a month and she only gets another if she pays the finance for that month.
And then was up in arms about how she wouldn't survive when her benefits were to be reduced, and how she wouldn't able to afford repayments on her luxury German car.
Obviously this is the 1% ruining it for the rest, but it certainly doesn't help things.
She was also telling everyone, parents included, that the husband was no longer living with her and supporting the family. He was discovered a few months later fully moved back into their welfare house and had been living there for god knows how long.
Who decided 5 days per week was the normal right amount to work?
God. Well it was 6 actually.
Actual cost = zero.
Opportunity cost = what they could contribute to GDP if they worked rather than just consumed.
Contribution: they are part of demand, remove them and demand goes down, and GDP with it.
[quote=plyphon ]I know someone who took the money they got for being a married-but-single-mum to two kids with no house and bought a Audi A3 Black Edition 2.0 TDI and was such a high risk on the finance they had to install a black box she puts a code into every time it starts - the code lasts a month and she only gets another if she pays the finance for that month.
And then was up in arms about how she wouldn't survive when her benefits were to be reduced, and how she wouldn't able to afford repayments on her luxury German car.
Obviously this is the 1% ruining it for the rest, but it certainly doesn't help things.
She was also telling everyone, parents included, that the husband was no longer living with her and supporting the family. He was discovered a few months later fully moved back into their welfare house and had been living there for god knows how long.
I read that and thought bullshit, but it actually exists...
https://www.thecarfinancecompany.co.uk/pitstop/the-black-box/
and they actively target universal benefit
https://www.thecarfinancecompany.co.uk/pitstop/universal-credit/
n0b0dy0ftheg0at - Member
Remeber also that unemployment is at its lowest level for 40 years accordinvg the government
The problem is, they aren't comparing apples to apples over the last 40 years, IMO. I think I'm right in saying that people on "zero hour contracts" are being classed as employed, for example.
Also, anyone sanctioned by a jobcentre has benefits stopped and is thus removed from the number of 'unemployed', bringing that level lower still.
God. Well it was 6 actuallly
..and he claimed universal credit for it.
nickc - Member
And people like zippy here, are how the bullshit over facts world that we live in now, persists.POSTED 3 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
What the people I mentioned received are facts.
What criteria they had to fulfill to receive them I don't know.
Obviously this is the [b]0.07% [/b]ruining it for the rest, but it certainly doesn't help things.
Ftfy
Im good friends with two brothers.. both unemployed both late 50s one made redundant when 34 hasnt worked since, doesnt drink or drive mrs works part time live a simple life live in thier own ex council house keep it and garden immaculate. no intention of every working live on what benifits they can get for mrs working and his 'bad back' other brother hasnt worked for 20 plus years been off sick with heart issues.. works doing odd jobs all day everyday doesnt smoke drinks like a fish live in council property.
someone somewhere is supporting these two lads to have literally the best tans in rochdale and the most laid back casual lifestyle i could imagine..
But zippy, if they're workshy, how are they doing a job of removals?
totalshell - MemberIm good friends with two brothers.......
So if thats true, shop them in?
move long nothing to see here. apols.
someone somewhere is supporting these two lads to have literally the best tans in rochdale and the most laid back casual lifestyle i could imagine..
That someone is you, you know who they are.
Guessing you don't really have a problem with them doing it?
Anyway, just my 2p to ensure there is balance on understanding before people vote, which ever way they decide!
You may want to find the correct thread to post all that. This thread is not about tax systems or the election.
Oh, and think about the rich as taking more rather than paying more and you might start to think differently.
If you're envious of the Rochdale lads lifestyle living high on the hog of welfare, why not as someone above suggests and quit working, claim benefits and try to emulate them