Removing housing benefit Options

[andy1979uk]

Think that's fair.

It is economically pointless to be able to claim more in tax credits than you pay in tax. It is a waste of money paying private nursery fee's for someone to sit on checkout for minimum wage and pay very little or no tax.

[Timbo]

I think there should be a tax-buffer. Ideally everyone should pay more tax then they recieve... like for example say you can not recieve more than 4 times what you have paid in regards to unemployment benefits..?

Eg I pay approx £500 a month tax with NI contribution. So if I work for a year, I pay £6000 tax. So then if I needed to claim an UNEMPLOYMENT benefit I could not claim back more than £6,000 (which would be about half a year on the dole). I guess different things such as tax credits or disability beneit may get different rules but generally trying to make it so each person pays more tax than they recieve in compensation should be the end goal.

Another option would be to start with a buffer such as £2,000, so you can claim up to negative £2,000 .. like an overdraft but with tax!

And I hate to say it but I think the elderly get far too much spent on them in terms of proportion. Yes I understand they may require help but someone said why not have children move in with parents, why not have the children (who may be in their 30s or 40s) look after their adults?! I think if you want to single out the bottom third of the population you need to do the same to the top third too.

[Jayjay]

It is economically pointless to be able to claim more in tax credits than you pay in tax. It is a waste of money paying private nursery fee's for someone to sit on checkout for minimum wage and pay very little or no tax.

But then they would be labelled work shy scroungers who cant be asked to go to work.

[andy1979uk]

But then they would be labelled work shy scroungers who cant be asked to go to work.

But at least they would be scroungers who cost us less

[Strafin]

I think there should be a tax-buffer. Ideally everyone should pay more tax then they recieve... like for example say you can not recieve more than 4 times what you have paid in regards to unemployment benefits..?

Eg I pay approx £500 a month tax with NI contribution. So if I work for a year, I pay £6000 tax. So then if I needed to claim an UNEMPLOYMENT benefit I could not claim back more than £6,000 (which would be about half a year on the dole). I guess different things such as tax credits or disability beneit may get different rules but generally trying to make it so each person pays more tax than they recieve in compensation should be the end goal.

Another option would be to start with a buffer such as £2,000, so you can claim up to negative £2,000 .. like an overdraft but with tax!

And I hate to say it but I think the elderly get far too much spent on them in terms of proportion. Yes I understand they may require help but someone said why not have children move in with parents, why not have the children (who may be in their 30s or 40s) look after their adults?! I think if you want to single out the bottom third of the population you need to do the same to the top third too.

On that note then, if you claimed £6000 in benefits should you then start to get other services restricted, such as NHS treatment?

[Jayjay]

But at least they would be scroungers who cost us less

Using the same comparison, people who are in their 50's/60's started work at 15 (university was only for teachers, doctors). Therefore they will have worked 50+ years when they retire. Under 40's left school later, had a gap year, went to uni, then started work. So surely, under your criteria, they should get a higher pension than younger people.

[JeffG]

people who are in their 50's/60's started work at 15 (university was only for teachers, doctors).

Really? Where does that idea come from?

[Timbo]

On that note then, if you claimed £6000 in benefits should you then start to get other services restricted, such as NHS treatment?

Healthcare, under UK law is a right, everyone deserves health. 90% of the time you can't help whatever illness, or cancer, or disease you may have. Where as 90% of the time you can help your job situation. not wishing to start a debate, but just giving a for-example - Do I think smokers who smoke themselves into lung cancer should be treated differently, perhaps with a lower priority, than a non smoker with lung cancer? Absolutely.

So vital services such as policing and healthcare should not be excluded, I am only talking about employment and housing related benefits. Unless there are immediate circumstances such as a 18 or 19 year old running away because of abuse at home or something, which can then be proved and in these emergency cases the rules would need fixing but on the whole I think it's a good idea?

[Strafin]

So how does that work if you can't take more out of the system than you put in? You could argue that smokers pay more tax for example.

[Berkshirelad]

It is not just being removed from the unemployed, but from everyone under 25. How would you advise a youngster working a 40 hour week and earning £4.98 an hour?

I would advise then to see an employment tribunal. There is a minimum wage AFAIK and it's over £6/hr

[Timbo]

So how does that work if you can't take more out of the system than you put in? You could argue that smokers pay more tax for example.

No idea. I just came up with a fairly feasible (in my eyes) idea, where such as with banks, you get an overdraft to help you when you are in need of the money however you are expected to keep yourself in the black.

Although directly relating to your point, I think as smoking and alcohol are purely optional past-times, and not legal requirements such as basic tax and NI contributions, they should not be counted. Fuel again would be under the same boat - it would only take into account contributions via tax PAYE and NI.

[Strafin]

I would advise then to see an employment tribunal. There is a minimum wage AFAIK and it's over £6/hr

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/employment/emp...age/dg_10027201

Current rates

[Jayjay]

Really? Where does that idea come from?

The idea that you left school at 15? That was the legal leaving age then.

The idea that only teachers/doctors went to uni? Maybe I should have written the professions. There were no media studies, nurses trained in hospitals, plumbers/hairdressers on job training and evening technical college.

[Jayjay]

No idea. I just came up with a fairly feasible (in my eyes) idea, where such as with banks, you get an overdraft to help you when you are in need of the money however you are expected to keep yourself in the black.

Although directly relating to your point, I think as smoking and alcohol are purely optional past-times, and not legal requirements such as basic tax and NI contributions, they should not be counted. Fuel again would be under the same boat - it would only take into account contributions via tax PAYE and NI.

Driving is purely optional, so if you crashed your car you would have to pay for treatment?

[Timbo]

Driving is purely optional, so if you crashed your car you would have to pay for treatment?

I am not sure, I think all healthcare should be covered regardless. Like I've said twice before it would only relate to unployment related benefits.

[blackdog]

I think there should be a tax-buffer. Ideally everyone should pay more tax then they recieve... like for example say you can not recieve more than 4 times what you have paid in regards to unemployment benefits..?

Eg I pay approx £500 a month tax with NI contribution. So if I work for a year, I pay £6000 tax. So then if I needed to claim an UNEMPLOYMENT benefit I could not claim back more than £6,000 (which would be about half a year on the dole). I guess different things such as tax credits or disability beneit may get different rules but generally trying to make it so each person pays more tax than they recieve in compensation should be the end goal.

Another option would be to start with a buffer such as £2,000, so you can claim up to negative £2,000 .. like an overdraft but with tax!

So what happens when the credit runs out - do we sit by and watch people starve?

And I hate to say it but I think the elderly get far too much spent on them in terms of proportion. Yes I understand they may require help but someone said why not have children move in with parents, why not have the children (who may be in their 30s or 40s) look after their adults?! I think if you want to single out the bottom third of the population you need to do the same to the top third too.

There is a lot to be said for families taking care of their young and old - but I know pensioners who are still financially supporting their 40+ year old children.

[booboo]

The idea that you left school at 15? That was the legal leaving age then.

The idea that only teachers/doctors went to uni? Maybe I should have written the professions. There were no media studies, nurses trained in hospitals, plumbers/hairdressers on job training and evening technical college.

Because I had an apprenticeship to go to I was allowed to leave school at 14. 2 weeks before my 15th birthday.
My employer paid for my education for my degree when I was 34.

[Timbo]

So what happens when the credit runs out - do we sit by and watch people starve?

Maybe that's what it would take - you are what you make yourself and and everyone is given a fair level of support. If after the support you are not able to support yourself then why should you expect the state?

People don't bother working because they know that the state will cover them. As soon as they realise they can't rely on other people I'm pretty sure they'd pull their finger out. And if not then, well - I don't think that's something we should have to worry about!

[Jayjay]

Maybe that's what it would take - you are what you make yourself and and everyone is given a fair level of support. If after the support you are not able to support yourself then why should you expect the state?

People don't bother working because they know that the state will cover them. As soon as they realise they can't rely on other people I'm pretty sure they'd pull their finger out. And if not then, well - I don't think that's something we should have to worry about!

Just been reading of someone made redundant from Glaxco who has just sent off his 450th job application. There are 23 people chasing every vacancy and, with the pupils leaving school next month, this is due to get worse. But in your view if they are not lucky enough to win the lottery of employment we should let them starve. Last time it was the jews, this time the poor and unemployed.

[andy1979uk]

Just been reading of someone made redundant from Glaxco who has just sent off his 450th job application. There are 23 people chasing every vacancy and, with the pupils leaving school next month, this is due to get worse. But in your view if they are not lucky enough to win the lottery of employment we should let them starve. Last time it was the jews, this time the poor and unemployed.

That's just unlucky am sure someone who worked at Glaxco would have addequote inusrance and redundancy money and would be entitled to job seakers. The ideas you can leave school, not get a job but claim housing benefit is beyond stupid.