Benefits system, done to death I know but....

[srebbe64]

...we employ a disabled chap who does good work for us a few hours a week - so much so we'd like him to work more hours. However, if he worked more hours he'd be significantly worse off because of all the benefits he'd lose.

Now this is not rocket science! The government are extremely creative in devising innovative new ways of Taxing its citizens - could they not use the same creative geniuses in finding a way of getting people off of benefits. For example, could they not have a system that for every £2 someone earns they lose £1 of benefits - thereby motivating them? Or is such a system too much like common sense so it won't make it passed committee 1 of 10?

[Lost soul]

srebbe64 said:

Or is such a system too much like common sense

You have answered your own question

[Eric Mc]

That's how they operate the Age Abatement system for people over 65.

You get more personal tax allowances when you reach 65. However, the additional allowance is reduced by £1 for every £2 your income exceeds a fixed amount, currently £22,900 per anum.

[Finlandia]

What? That would be political suicide, the benefit recipients votes are important, you know. If anything, make sure the benefit recipients group expands, = more votes.

After all the governmentals in UK have studied the Swedish way and are copying it perfectly...

[robinhood21]

I think Cameron mention something about this in his speech. That is, allowing the unemployed more scope in earnings against benefits, so as to encourage a back-to-work ethic.

[Dogsey]

Just pay him more ya tight bugger!

[cymtriks]

srebbe64 said:

For example, could they not have a system that for every £2 someone earns they lose £1 of benefits - thereby motivating them? Or is such a system too much like common sense so it won't make it passed committee 1 of 10?

That is way to complicated. Just imagine constantly filling in forms for every extra 2 pounds you earn.

My own idea is staggeringly simple:

• Have one fixed payment that every adult resident in the UK for more than three years gets
• Have one variable payment related to need and how much you have paid in via tax (i.e. tax paid x need)

These two replace everything. No more maternity pay, pension, free bus passes, housing benefit or child care vouchers. No more home help allowance, no more tax credits, mobility or fuel allowance. The above is everything you get from the state.

Notice that this effectively restores student grants and effectively pays housewives to do their job.

Also notice that if you make your situation worse without first paying some tax you do not get any extra at all.

[Eric Mc]

If it's way too simple, how can HMRC operate such a scheme relatively successfully?

[RizzoTheRat]

cymtriks said:

srebbe64 said:

For example, could they not have a system that for every £2 someone earns they lose £1 of benefits - thereby motivating them? Or is such a system too much like common sense so it won't make it passed committee 1 of 10?

That is way to complicated. Just imagine constantly filling in forms for every extra 2 pounds you earn.

Not really much more complicated than the current system. For example jobseekers is just over £60/week, you're allowed to do up to 16 hours work per week while remaining on jobseekers, however you have to declare how much you've earned, and if it's less than jobseekers payment, it's made up to that amount (ie if you earned £40 they pay you £20). This means someone doing some work on minimum wage has to do over 10 hours work before they start to see any extra cash. If the 10 hours work, earned them £60 but the job centre knocked £30 off thier benefit instead of £60, as suggested above, there's a lot more incentive to go and do some work, which admittedly would cost the state more, but would hopefully lead to them getting more work.