Tax cuts to get people working
Discussion
Not sure what the numbers are. From what I gather if you are claiming benefits there is a real disincentive to get a job.
If its political suicide to reduce benefits, then an answer is to amke sure that those working at the minimum wage level have a real incentive to do so.
What are the pro's and cons. What would it cost the economy to reduce the taxes for anyone earning less than 13k p/a to nowt.
I see the benefits as being mahooosive, to all in the country.
If its political suicide to reduce benefits, then an answer is to amke sure that those working at the minimum wage level have a real incentive to do so.
What are the pro's and cons. What would it cost the economy to reduce the taxes for anyone earning less than 13k p/a to nowt.
I see the benefits as being mahooosive, to all in the country.
Gunny Sergeant D said:
Not sure what the numbers are. From what I gather if you are claiming benefits there is a real disincentive to get a job.
If its political suicide to reduce benefits, then an answer is to amke sure that those working at the minimum wage level have a real incentive to do so.
What are the pro's and cons. What would it cost the economy to reduce the taxes for anyone earning less than 13k p/a to nowt.
I see the benefits as being mahooosive, to all in the country.
Would that be the first 13k of everyone's earnings......If its political suicide to reduce benefits, then an answer is to amke sure that those working at the minimum wage level have a real incentive to do so.
What are the pro's and cons. What would it cost the economy to reduce the taxes for anyone earning less than 13k p/a to nowt.
I see the benefits as being mahooosive, to all in the country.
Gunny Sergeant D said:
esselte said:
Would that be the first 13k of everyone's earnings......
Totally, otherwise it would be un fair. I'd rather see people working than completely scamming the state.
h and moan that they were beng penalised rather than helped.Now scrapping income tax altogether would be more like it!
My ex. is on £12,500 take home in benefits (single person, own home, no kids). However she is going to college, actively working towards working.
Still, many people taking home £12,500 a year in benefits would need a HUGE incentive to go out and look for a job. Anything paying less that £20k is out, as why would you accept a job that - after tax - gives you less than you had doing nothing! Some have a conscience, not many though.
Obviously paying people to do nothing isn't cheap, so I doubt that there will be any money available to knock the tax down on the few people who work.
Still, many people taking home £12,500 a year in benefits would need a HUGE incentive to go out and look for a job. Anything paying less that £20k is out, as why would you accept a job that - after tax - gives you less than you had doing nothing! Some have a conscience, not many though.
Obviously paying people to do nothing isn't cheap, so I doubt that there will be any money available to knock the tax down on the few people who work.
sa_20v said:
Oh come on, you're very likely to see a rate increase for higher tax earners in the next budget, along with higher taxes on bonuses...
A flat rate tax of 25% would actually make far more sense - but politicians seem devoid of that!
But only if it was set to kick in at something like £16k.A flat rate tax of 25% would actually make far more sense - but politicians seem devoid of that!
Any less than that, and lower earners would be worse off.
Gunny Sergeant D said:
If its political suicide to reduce benefits
1. Benefits need to be capped on a household basis. Anyone found bending the rules gets the benefits for the household removed - everyone living at the property loses all entitlements. Some slag wants a loser boyfriend, then it better not be someone who is blacklisted cause her benefits are history whilst he lives with her.2. Benefit cheats lose all future benefits claims for life.
3. Benefits to stay the same for the next ten years. Let inflation reduce their value.
4. Stop giving bl**dy council houses to every Tom Dick, and Sue. Council house lists should be worked on a basis of first come first served, and the current lists should be assessed chronologically.
5. If some 16year old single mother slag gets thrown out of her council house, the council have the right to say "You know, its not our problem f
k off". She'll soon apologize to her parents given a couple of nights in the cold and learn some manners in the future.6. Have a child under the age of 16, and you and your child are housed in a mother and baby centre, and not a house, and your parents are investigated. Any feckless losers who allowed it to happen lose their benefits as well. The least a benefit claimant could do is bring up their children properly.
Finally,
7. Every year 1 in a 100 benefits losers in council housing gets evicted in a random lottery. "It could be you" should have a whole new meaning.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff