The big problem for example with Universal Credit, is it supposes people on the financial edge should manage their lives in the same way as the people at the Think Tank do, i.e. paid monthly. What it doesn’t take account of is that if you’re on the edge, you budget weekly, and need money at that cadence, and you have nothing else to fall back on, made worse by a 4 week delay in funds.
While we’re at it, what also Universal Credit does also is put a lot of power in the hands of an abusive partner, who can control the money given to partner/children.
Anyway, I’m reading a lot of tropes about the poor on here, that their feckless, blow there money on booze, gambling, phones and TVs. Controlling there money? Might as well bring back the poor house and be done with it
A paper released by the British Medical Journal in November 2017 estimated that the government austerity programme caused around 120,000 excess deaths since 2010.[77][78] By 2018 figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) were showing a fall in life expectancy for those in poorer socioeconomic groups and those living in deprived areas,[79] while average UK life expectancy had stopped improving.
Simply, the vast majority of people who require welfare payments and aren’t pensioners, are either in work, children (through child benefit) or unable to work for a medical reason. I just get the feeling you think the welfare system is purely about the unemployed, and not about putting a floor where hopefully people won’t fall.
Do you have any stats to back that up? And also, why do we have child benefits? Should we be subsidising families who can’t afford to have a family? And why are we subsidising the employed? The employers need to pay more, or the market needs to change.
So in general, I think there is a large amount of areas where our tax money is spent inefficiently and could be better spent e.g. NHS wastes a lot, some council workers are paid more than the prime minister, quangos etc
However I disagree with a lot of what’s been said about benefits, I mean according to the government website, the benefit cap is 20k outside London and 23k inside London. It’s pretty hard to be living a lavish lifestyle on that, even with help for rent etc. So I doubt many people are claiming max benefits because they are lazy and don’t want to work (although that does happen)
The key is to stack the benefits. Housing benefits, child benefits, free items, taxis to and from college etc. If you know your way around the system, you won’t be partying in a 5* hotel, but you can definitely find a few perks.
Also, on that “free stuff”, sure, you’ll get free catheters; free incontinence pads; but I challenge anyone to suggest those people wouldn’t mind working or paying for their medical supplies if it meant they could live a full, healthy life.
Also, you don’t get free taxis, unless you are referring to patient transport --they’ll sometimes send a taxi if there is no ambulance available.
But here’s the thing…just because someone looks healthy on the outside, they may even be walking around, but it doesn’t mean that they are. There may be people who are trying it on, but it’s a thin end of the wedge.
On your austerity point --a normal government will spend a proportion of what it takes in tax on capital investment, often delivered by private sector contractors, particularly in construction. They’ll also contract out some services --domiciliary care for example. Austerity has meant that a lot of this has dried up.
Money flows, jobs are created, people spend money in shops, sustain retail jobs etc
Nope, just not true. I’ve seen teenagers on benefits have taxis to and from college paid for every day, as well as new clothing, prams, cots, bedding etc. Unless that’s been changed in the last two years, I’ve seen it be abused by multiple families across the country.
Sure but unless I am misunderstanding the cap, the max this can add up to is either 20k or 23k? Personally I think the cap is too high (outside of London) but that’s another issue
If you mean the maternity grant then that’s still a thing. I was very grateful for it as my child would have had nothing despite me working full time. Social services and the local authority can pay for taxis. Obviously you know those teenagers well so will know what the medical diagnosis was that qualified them
Literally no medical diagnosis, other than being a teenage single mother. I’m not sure if it changes based on the local authority, but it made a lot of people unhappy.
So it was to ensure she kept up with her education so she would have qualifications to give her more chance of getting a job. Can’t see why that’s a problem
Well what a thorough waste of money. They must all be like that, let’s demonise them.
Actually the opposite. Check out all the history and research behind the Universal Basic Income, even Richard Nixon nearly passed it into law, a Conservative Republican.
Here’s a couple of snippets to catch your eye from UBI wiki:
Burtless and Munnell also mention that the money people had received was not squandered on frivolous products such as drugs and luxury goods. In addition, there has been an increase in school attendance.
Mincome in Manitoba
A similar field experiment of the Canadian [Guaranteed Annual Income] known as Mincome, took place in Dauphin, Manitoba between 1974 and 1979. According to a research into the effects of Mincome on population health, conducted by a University of Manitoba researcher Evelyn Forget in 2011, the experiment has resulted in significant reduction in hospitalization, specifically in case of mental health diagnoses. Among all the people, only two key groups were found to be discouraged from working by the Mincome project – new mothers and teenaged boys, who, instead of entering the workforce at an early age, decided to study until grade 12, increasing the proportion of students who graduate high school.
Whilst I can see why you’d believe this, again take a look at Americas tax rates over recent history. If your theory is correct why did the millionaires stay? Why did America thrive?
Exactly. Having the means to move freely is not the same as having the willingness to move.
Absent extreme tax rates, people generally don’t base their decisions on where to live on tax rates. Things like the quality of the area, friends, family, schools, work… are far more important factors.
I’m not sure what your point is…In that instance, it was a staggering waste of money, and certainly not the only case I’ve seen. I’ve seen several career drug dealers be the recipients of free items as well. Can we agree that in a fair welfare system, none of that would be happening?
It really isn’t the opposite. Many Asian cultures, such as Japan and South Korea, would consider the UK welfare system to be grossly overly generous and designed to encourage free riding.
Also, unfortunately if you look up the ONS drug statistics, for every drug other than cocaine, the lowest income households are at the most risk of having users.
As for tax rate…it should be obvious. World war 2. America was the only country not left in ruin and having to go through rationing. While the USA was going through the age of conformity, everywhere else was slowly trying to rebuild some semblance of normality. If you had money, America was the only place worth living in until the 80’s, and by that time it had established itself as the cultural and economic super power of the world.
And South Korea has seen its biggest ever increase in welfare claimants in December a 16% increase. These are unsustainable. Not beacons to point at.
So why was the average tax rate over the last hundred years so high. The war was over. Did the money not go into world class public services, buildings infrastructure, industry and education to make America great?
A few anecdotal instances of the system being manipulated does not necessitate the persecution of the vast majority who are in need --which is what has been happening.
Meanwhile, multi-millionaires are able to dodge most of their tax in much of the western world, some billionaires paying less tax than their PA’s. Perhaps we should go after them?
