John Humphrys - Future State of Welfare BBC 2/HD
Discussion
martin84 said:
When some of you talk about 'i earned more so i should get more in benefits' what you're talking about is a nectar card like reward scheme where the more you earn and pay the more you get in rewards.
You say 'earned more' I say 'paid more'.
Surely you can understand the sense of injustice felt when those who pay the highest contributions find that they are entitled to less than those who have paid nothing at all.
martin84 said:
...The Welfare system is there to provide those with no income with the bare minimum required to live, eat and survive, thats what its for. It is not there to provide 40k earners with most of their income in time of sudden unemployment.
Does that include 42" flatscreens, laptops, iphones, sky subs, beer + fags, car (+ tax/insurance) etc? Or are those counted in 'to survive'.
RYH64E said:
You say 'earned more' I say 'paid more'.
Surely you can understand the sense of injustice felt when those who pay the highest contributions find that they are entitled to less than those who have paid nothing at all.
You're not 'entitled to less' you're entitled to exactly the same. Its not based on how much you've earned or paid its based on how much you've got. You couldve earned 100k for 10 years, spent it all and now unemployed with no money and no savings you'd still receive the same as someone who's never worked. If your household income is more than the state deems enough to live on you'll still receive JSA for 6 months if you've made 2 years of National Insurance contributions (6 months of JSA is about £1300 i think) so contributions are taken into account and you'd be entitled to that because you've paid more, even if your partner earns more than the state deems enough to live on. If your household income is not enough after this point for whatever reason you have equal entitlement as everybody else.Surely you can understand the sense of injustice felt when those who pay the highest contributions find that they are entitled to less than those who have paid nothing at all.
Its not a reward scheme, its not a Nectar card. Just the same as paying more tobacco duty doesnt make you more entitled to health treatment because you paid more tax. Having a Band M car doesnt earn you any more entitlement to use the road than a Band A one just because you paid more. People who pay higher council tax dont get their bins collected twice as often as someone in a low banded property. Just because you're buying £20 worth of DVD's in a shop and hence paying more VAT doesnt entitle you to que jump over someone paying half as much.
I can see why some people who've worked hard for years and suddenly find themselves out of work may find it 'unfair' that they're put straight back on the bottom row but i dont see why anybody would want to claim benefit (regardless of prior income or background) as most people who have earned/paid more find it a source of pride that they dont need state help immediately after becoming unemployed.
martin84 said:
When some of you talk about 'i earned more so i should get more in benefits' what you're talking about is a nectar card like reward scheme where the more you earn and pay the more you get in rewards. Thats not what the Welfare state is for. The Welfare system is there to provide those with no income with the bare minimum required to live, eat and survive, thats what its for. It is not there to provide 40k earners with most of their income in time of sudden unemployment.
Why shouldn't unemployment benefit at least be related to how much you've paid in?Earning 40K does not make you rich and most monthly expenses will be very hard to change at short notice. This justifies at least some link between benefits and how much you have paid in.
joe_90 said:
Does that include 42" flatscreens, laptops, iphones, sky subs, beer + fags, car (+ tax/insurance) etc? Or are those counted in 'to survive'.
Im not sure where you get that from or where you obtained your evidence that every single person on benefit has all of these things but i'd love to see it. If its a Daily Mail link i wont click on it so dont bother, i want proper proof. The fact is though until you've met people, and i mean really met not 'read about it in the paper' you dont know anything about anybody. Flatscreen and laptop mightve been a Christmas gift for all you know. If they choose to spend it on beer instead of food thats up to them, i still wonder if a 'food stamps' sort of thing like they have in the US would be better as that way the state knows the money is being spent on what its supposed to be spent on.Ive seen the type who que up for 'crisis loans' with Adidas trainers and iPhones on them but i somehow doubt they 'bought' any of it. Catalogue monthly order or something most probably. When i was made redundant a few years ago i moved back in with my parents for a spell and only got JSA as i didnt need housing benefit or anything like that and i remember going to a group meeting thing after a few weeks and i felt almost wrong turning up reasonably well dressed with a leather jacket on, like turning up in Greece wearing a suit made of money. Someone who didnt know me may of thought 'look at him, he can afford nice clothes and hair gel on benefits' not knowing i'd been working for a few years before that. And the jacket was a Christmas gift and it wasnt even new then.
martin84 said:
If your household income is more than the state deems enough to live on you'll still receive JSA for 6 months if you've made 2 years of National Insurance contributions (6 months of JSA is about £1300 i think) so contributions are taken into account and you'd be entitled to that because you've paid more, even if your partner earns more than the state deems enough to live on. If your household income is not enough after this point for whatever reason you have equal entitlement as everybody else.
As I understand it, it isn't just income that is taken into account but savings as well, which doesn't exactly encourage responsible saving.The total support most decent tax payers could expect is the initial 6 months JSA, which would equate to about 2 weeks housing benefit for the flat in Islington featured in the programme.
cymtriks said:
Why shouldn't unemployment benefit at least be related to how much you've paid in?
Earning 40K does not make you rich and most monthly expenses will be very hard to change at short notice. This justifies at least some link between benefits and how much you have paid in.
There is a link between benefits and how much you've paid in. Its called Contributions Based JSA. The amount you get in JSA is the same as everyone else but you still receive it even if your household earns 'too much' because you've paid NI for 2 years. If you're made unemployed monthly expenses have to change no matter how hard it is. Get rid of everything you can which you dont need in the first week and go from there. If that eventually means you cant afford to live in the house you were in because you cant find more work then take a leaf out of the councillor's book and 'live in the real world' and move somewhere cheaper Earning 40K does not make you rich and most monthly expenses will be very hard to change at short notice. This justifies at least some link between benefits and how much you have paid in.
Earning 40k certainly doesnt make you rich but it certainly takes the sting out of being poor and should be enough for sensible people with some financial brain to have enough put aside so as one month of unemployment doesnt bankrupt them.
RYH64E said:
As I understand it, it isn't just income that is taken into account but savings as well, which doesn't exactly encourage responsible saving.
You're correct if you have over £16,000 in savings you're not entitled to the benefit (because you dont need the money, i'll point out again its based on how much you've got not what you've earned or paid) but its not the job of the Welfare state to protect your savings. Thats your job. You say it doesnt encourage responsible saving but the way i look at it is the more you save the less chance you'll ever have to go in a Job Centre and having worked in one thats incentive enough for me. RHY64E said:
The total support most decent tax payers could expect is the initial 6 months JSA, which would equate to about 2 weeks housing benefit for the flat in Islington featured in the programme.
Yes well London property is stupidly overpriced, their flat is about 4 times more per month than where i live and from what i saw, except for an extra room they dont seem to have much that i dont. In my view people in Islington shouldnt expect the state to fund them to live there, whether they used to be able to afford it or not. Islington rent levels shouldnt be the base benchmark for benefits. Just because you used to be able to afford it doesnt give you an entitlement to still live there at the taxpayers expense when you lose your income. The Government obviously agrees with me as they're bringing in a housing benefit cap. 'Decent tax payer' or otherwise its not (or shouldnt be) the States job to keep you in an expensive Islington home if you can no longer afford it. To borrow a certain councillor's terms you should 'live in the real world' In the case specifically mentioned in the program JH had a very good question when he asked 'how much should the taxpayer pay to keep London supplied with low paid workers' which is essentially whats happening in the case featured.
Edited by martin84 on Saturday 29th October 13:51
martin84 said:
In my view people in Islington shouldnt expect the state to fund them to live there, whether they used to be able to afford it or not. Islington rent levels shouldnt be the base benchmark for benefits. Just because you used to be able to afford it doesnt give you an entitlement to still live there at the taxpayers expense when you lose your income. The Government obviously agrees with me as they're bringing in a housing benefit cap. 'Decent tax payer' or otherwise its not (or shouldnt be) the States job to keep you in an expensive Islington home if you can no longer afford it. To borrow a certain councillor's terms you should 'live in the real world'
I rather doubt that the family featured in the programme could ever have afforded to live in Islington without state support. They were not a family whose circumstances had changed and, after paying substantial contributions for a long time were looking for some temporary assistance, rather they had recently arrived from Ecuador via Spain and the father couldn't even speak English.I agree that people need to reduce their outgoings when their circumstances change, but that can take time and when people have become used to a certain income their monthly outgoings are often substantial. But then their payments in income tax and national INSURANCE will also have been substantial, often for many years. The way the system appears to work is to wait until these people have lost everything then step in with some assistance, too little too late.
RYH64E said:
I rather doubt that the family featured in the programme could ever have afforded to live in Islington without state support. They were not a family whose circumstances had changed and, after paying substantial contributions for a long time were looking for some temporary assistance, rather they had recently arrived from Ecuador via Spain and the father couldn't even speak English.
They did say that he is an engineer of some description though but happy to work as a cleaner or waiter or whatever it was. Plenty of people from this country when made unemployed refuse to do anything which wasnt their trade, pay less than they were used to or that they see as 'beneath' them and he obviously isnt like that so you have to give him that at least. RHY64E said:
I agree that people need to reduce their outgoings when their circumstances change, but that can take time and when people have become used to a certain income their monthly outgoings are often substantial. But then their payments in income tax and national INSURANCE will also have been substantial, often for many years. The way the system appears to work is to wait until these people have lost everything then step in with some assistance, too little too late.
Nobody told them to have substantial outgoings, anytime you arrange for an outgoing you do it on the basis you know you can pay for it. Unless you're like the Daily Mail middle class bint who admitted she 'borrowed to the hilt on the mortage expecting credit to grow on trees' of course. But i ask you why should the state look to protect the middle classes from losing everything? You're talking as if because someones been used to a certain income and savings for years that they have an entitlement to retain it and its up to the State to do so. The State will step in when you have nothing to stop you living on the street, thats its job. It is not the states job to keep 40k earners in the lifestyle in which they were accustomed. I've already said how NI contributions are taken into account, your prior income tax rate is completely irrelevent. Should someone who used to pay 50p tax rate get most of their former wage in benefit due to extra entitlement to live how they want?
Ill give you an example when i was made redundant it was around 7 months after being put onto the highest wage i've ever had after 18 months of proving myself for a substantial salary rise - which may prove the people on here who accuse me of anger and resentment may have a point - but i didnt expect the state to pay me most of it because i'd earned it? I got the £50 odd a week JSA like everybody else. Should i of asked where the other £600 was going to come from?
martin84 said:
Nobody told them to have substantial outgoings, anytime you arrange for an outgoing you do it on the basis you know you can pay for it. Unless you're like the Daily Mail middle class bint who admitted she 'borrowed to the hilt on the mortage expecting credit to grow on trees' of course.
But i ask you why should the state look to protect the middle classes from losing everything? You're talking as if because someones been used to a certain income and savings for years that they have an entitlement to retain it and its up to the State to do so. The State will step in when you have nothing to stop you living on the street, thats its job. It is not the states job to keep 40k earners in the lifestyle in which they were accustomed. I've already said how NI contributions are taken into account, your prior income tax rate is completely irrelevent. Should someone who used to pay 50p tax rate get most of their former wage in benefit due to extra entitlement to live how they want?
Ill give you an example when i was made redundant it was around 7 months after being put onto the highest wage i've ever had after 18 months of proving myself for a substantial salary rise - which may prove the people on here who accuse me of anger and resentment may have a point - but i didnt expect the state to pay me most of it because i'd earned it? I got the £50 odd a week JSA like everybody else. Should i of asked where the other £600 was going to come from?
If higher earners are expected to pay more in taxes why should they not be entitled to expect more financial support when they need it?But i ask you why should the state look to protect the middle classes from losing everything? You're talking as if because someones been used to a certain income and savings for years that they have an entitlement to retain it and its up to the State to do so. The State will step in when you have nothing to stop you living on the street, thats its job. It is not the states job to keep 40k earners in the lifestyle in which they were accustomed. I've already said how NI contributions are taken into account, your prior income tax rate is completely irrelevent. Should someone who used to pay 50p tax rate get most of their former wage in benefit due to extra entitlement to live how they want?
Ill give you an example when i was made redundant it was around 7 months after being put onto the highest wage i've ever had after 18 months of proving myself for a substantial salary rise - which may prove the people on here who accuse me of anger and resentment may have a point - but i didnt expect the state to pay me most of it because i'd earned it? I got the £50 odd a week JSA like everybody else. Should i of asked where the other £600 was going to come from?
Just because you state how the system works doesn`t mean that it is fair or equitable.
RYH64E said:
If higher earners are expected to pay more in taxes why should they not be entitled to expect more financial support when they need it?
No they shouldnt, because higher earners dont NEED the financial support as much as lower ones. NEED is the key word here and the word you used, not me. The threshold at which the household income is too high to be entitled to benefits is actually quite low, certainly not middle class. Why should the state have to support people who could support themselves? Isnt that the very issue we're trying to tackle in our welfare system right now? The system is perfectly fair. Everybody gets the same. We shouldnt give high earners a sense of entitlement to receive more state funds just because they paid more in, you're just encouraging people to have a year off work if you're going to do that. Economically it wouldnt work either and would add to the Welfare Bill which in turn would push up the contributions you'd be expected to pay to the Treasury and im sure you dont want that.
Again you're completely missing the point of what the Welfare is there for. Its there to stop people at the bottom with nothing from living on the road. You seem to think it should run as a reward system to give millions to the slightly more well off (and richer) people who get made redundant so as they dont have to live in the real world, thats not what its for. Do you think the moment someone gets into the 50k bracket they have a god given entitlement to stay there for the rest of their lives no matter what? If they drop down and end up with nothing someone else will soon take their place. The circle of life. If you work hard, get a break and earn well then good on you but theres only one person who has the responsibility of ensuring you remain there, and it certainly isnt the State.
What you're looking for is some sort of private insurance scheme to protect earnings if you're made unemployed, theres plenty of such schemes you could enroll in if you wish but the Government isnt there to do it for you, thats there to help people who need the help, not to give money to people who want it rather than need it.
martin84 said:
There is a link between benefits and how much you've paid in. Its called Contributions Based JSA. The amount you get in JSA is the same as everyone else but you still receive it even if your household earns 'too much' because you've paid NI for 2 years.
That's not really a direct link between how much you've paid in and how much you get back though is it?It's more a case of "If you've worked for two years we disregard some of the criteria that would otherwise reduce your entitlement".
martin84 said:
If you're made unemployed monthly expenses have to change no matter how hard it is. Get rid of everything you can which you dont need in the first week and go from there. If that eventually means you cant afford to live in the house you were in because you cant find more work then take a leaf out of the councillor's book and 'live in the real world' and move somewhere cheaper
Most people can't change the big items. In most cases a huge portion of outgoings will be mortgage, food, gas, electric, water, telephone, car, council tax and petrol. Some of these are very difficult to cut back on quickly and though some can be cut quickly the initial savings would be minimal. It could take many months for example to sell your house, car and see a change in utility bills. Also there will be charges to reduce some of these outgoings such as estate agent fees to downsize a house.martin84 said:
Earning 40k certainly doesnt make you rich but it certainly takes the sting out of being poor and should be enough for sensible people with some financial brain to have enough put aside so as one month of unemployment doesnt bankrupt them.
I don't think anyone supporting a family on that would be putting much aside, certainly not more than a few months salary at any one time.Your apparent belief that having paid in entitles you to nothing extra out is exactly what causes immense resentment of the current system. If you want a society in which the poorer classes are not vilified by everyone else you may want to consider this.
martin84 said:
What you're looking for is some sort of private insurance scheme to protect earnings if you're made unemployed,
Some of us old blokes remember Unemployment Benefit being called a National Insurance benefit. And just like an insurance, if you'd paid in and you needed to, you claimed. As I said earlier, in the 80s the drift from this to mostly means tested started.Edited by Sticks. on Saturday 29th October 15:33
Sticks. said:
Some of us old blokes remember Unemployment Benefit being called a National Insurance benefit. And just like an insurance, if you paid in and you needed to, you claimed. As I said earlier, in the 80s the drift from this to mostly means tested started.
Means testing is the best way to do it as it means you dont end up giving money to people who dont need it. In my view more benefits should be means tested. Alan Sugar (for example) gets a winter fuel payment due to his age and nothing else. Doesnt even have to ask for it. I know a couple of elderly relatives who are 80+ now who havent touched their £400 winter fuel money for a few years because they dont need it, just sat there. If they were 'feckless bone idle so called job seekers' middle England would be going mad.cymtriks said:
That's not really a direct link between how much you've paid in and how much you get back though is it?
No we have pension schemes for that. The system doesnt claim it is supposed to be a link between whats paid in and what you get back. Its there to help people survive who have no income. cymtriks said:
Most people can't change the big items. In most cases a huge portion of outgoings will be mortgage, food, gas, electric, water, telephone, car, council tax and petrol. Some of these are very difficult to cut back on quickly and though some can be cut quickly the initial savings would be minimal. It could take many months for example to sell your house, car and see a change in utility bills. Also there will be charges to reduce some of these outgoings such as estate agent fees to downsize a house.
All of that is their problem and most of them are expenses everybody has. Why should the state subsidise these people to make that transition easier for them? I repeat my question from earlier, do you think that the moment someone gets into the 50k bracket - for arguments sake - that they have a god given entitlement to remain there for the rest of their lives? Its unfortunate for anyone who ends up in such a situation but its not the states job to subsidise middle income earners who cant handle a sudden transition. When i said on here that people were entitled to a roof over their head, food, water and an education i was told i had a sense of entitlement. Now im being told middle income earners deserve more in benefits to make their life run smoother if they lose their jobs because they should be entitled to more from the state. cymtriks said:
I don't think anyone supporting a family on that would be putting much aside, certainly not more than a few months salary at any one time.
Thats a lot more than a family on half that manage to put away. And if a family on half that were to have one of the parents lose their job the chances are they'll be entitled to nothing (except the JSA 6 months) due to the other partners income. You'll probably say 'but they had a small house and not much else to start with anyway' but when you're on very little, having even less has a bigger impact regardless of circumstance. I dont view having to swap two X5's for one normal car to be the sort of outrageous sacrifice the state should be rushing to prevent people having to do.cymtriks said:
Your apparent belief that having paid in entitles you to nothing extra out is exactly what causes immense resentment of the current system. If you want a society in which the poorer classes are not vilified by everyone else you may want to consider this.
Thats not what causes immense resentment of the current system at all. It may be in your mind but thats not what the public are saying whatsoever. The resentment of the current system is that it gives certain people the option of staying on state dependance because its not worth doing anything else. The system should be a safety net to provide the bare minimum to those who need it. The system should not be a relief fund to prevent middle earners from having to drop down a bit in their lives due to unfortunate circumstances. If we do that then where do we draw the line and where does it end? £400,000 in benefit for Fred Goodwin? Taxpayer funds Rebecca Brooks' Cottswolds lifestyle after News International resignation? Possibilities would be endless.
Edited by martin84 on Saturday 29th October 15:57
martin84 said:
Thats not what causes immense resentment of the current system at all. It may be in your mind but thats not what the public are saying whatsoever. The resentment of the current system is that it gives certain people the option of staying on state dependance because its not worth doing anything else.
I disagree. There is immense resentment of the fact that the undeserving poor get full access to a wide range of benefits without ever contributing to the system in any meaningful way, whilst those that do pay get nothing after the minimum 6 months JSA.Nobody is suggesting a high rate of benefits for life for middle class tax payers, rather a realistic payment that allows them a bit of breathing space to get back into work, or if that isn't possible to readjust to their new circumstances. Paid for by the higher contributions that they are required to make through the current tax system. Nothing wrong with expecting a bit of your own money back when you need it.
RYH64E said:
I disagree. There is immense resentment of the fact that the undeserving poor get full access to a wide range of benefits without ever contributing to the system in any meaningful way, whilst those that do pay get nothing after the minimum 6 months JSA.
Nobody is suggesting a high rate of benefits for life for middle class tax payers, rather a realistic payment that allows them a bit of breathing space to get back into work, or if that isn't possible to readjust to their new circumstances. Paid for by the higher contributions that they are required to make through the current tax system. Nothing wrong with expecting a bit of your own money back when you need it.
Again it looks like we have different views of 'need.' I dont think people need Sky TV, two X5's and a 4 bedroomed surburban house or to send the kids to Orchestra practice. Why do you class the poor as 'undeserving', who are the deserving poor? Out of interest. Is someone who goes to school, college etc then cant get work (youth unemployment is a major problem at the moment) not deserving of any help at all? I read somewhere recently the average age at which someone gets their first job now is 22. It wasnt that long ago when it was possible to get a job if you left school at 16 but you dont get taken seriously anymore at that age. Are they the 'undeserving poor' or the 'deserving poor'? We can sit and debate how the education system has perhaps made people ill prepared for work and how the skills business requires are a rarity in todays youth until the cows come home but thats not the topic at hand.Nobody is suggesting a high rate of benefits for life for middle class tax payers, rather a realistic payment that allows them a bit of breathing space to get back into work, or if that isn't possible to readjust to their new circumstances. Paid for by the higher contributions that they are required to make through the current tax system. Nothing wrong with expecting a bit of your own money back when you need it.
Is someone who's worked for 10 years in minimum wage jobs who gets laid off 'deserving' or 'undeserving' poor? Their contributions and taxes were probably quite low but their wages and chances of savings were equally as low so how do you view that? If you're on minimum wage and then lose your job you've literally got nothing, there are no savings or anything to fall back on.
You say these people should be given money to 'readjust to their new circumstances' but they cannot compare to the circumstances of those with no money at all who need the help. So you cant afford the mortgage on your 4 bedroomed suburban house with conservatory anymore, big deal, someone else will soon take it for a nice knockdown price at repo-auction. I think ive already explained the tax system in this country doesnt work on entitlement. If you pay £460 VED do you think you have more right to use the road than someone who pays £20?
You say they should have a 'realistic' payment. What is realistic? Do you class Islington rent rates as realistic? Do you agree there has to be an element of success and failure in society for it to work? By that i mean we cant protect everybody in the middle class from ever falling out of it, there needs to be give and take, win and lose, up and down, boom and bust etc. Not everybody can start work on minimum wage and end up rich but anything other than that seems to be the 'undeserving poor.'
Whichever way you worked this system the bottom line would be that it'd make the Welfare bill rise so this Government will never consider it. Money would have to come from somewhere and the much trotted Cameron/Clegg line 'what do you want us to cut instead' will get asked and by the sounds of it the people whom a system like this would benefit wouldnt give a f
k what got cut so long as it didnt affect them.I'd heard about middle class people supposedly feeling a sense of entitlement and that they shouldnt have to take part in the recession but i thought it was all newspaper bluster. Deary me.
martin84 said:
I'd heard about middle class people supposedly feeling a sense of entitlement and that they shouldnt have to take part in the recession but i thought it was all newspaper bluster. Deary me.
My point is a very simple one, those that pay into the system should get appropriate support when they need it. Those that pay nothing, or very little, should get the bare minimum in return. A hostel in Burnley would be more appropriate than a flat in Islington, and food stamps would be more appropriate than cash that can be spent on cigarettes and booze. If we cut back on benefit payments to non-contributors then there would be sufficient left to support those who have paid if and when they need it.
martin84 said:
Sticks. said:
Some of us old blokes remember Unemployment Benefit being called a National Insurance benefit. And just like an insurance, if you paid in and you needed to, you claimed. As I said earlier, in the 80s the drift from this to mostly means tested started.
Means testing is the best way to do it as it means you don't end up giving money to people who don't need it. In my view more benefits should be means tested. Alan Sugar (for example) gets a winter fuel payment due to his age and nothing else. Doesn't even have to ask for it. I know a couple of elderly relatives who are 80+ now who haven't touched their £400 winter fuel money for a few years because they don't need it, just sat there. If they were 'feckless bone idle so called job seekers' middle England would be going mad.Mr Sugar and others like him are in a small minority, most pensioners welcome their winter allowance and introducing additional bureaucracy to prevent Mr Sugar getting any will apply to also apply to the half blind, barely literate, arthritic and slightly senile woman who can barely hold a pencil in her freezing cold fingers. Quite simply Mr Sugar isn't worth excluding from the system because to exclude him would cause far more issues than you'd ever solve.
martin84 said:
cymtriks said:
That's not really a direct link between how much you've paid in and how much you get back though is it?
No we have pension schemes for that.martin84 said:
The system doesnt claim it is supposed to be a link between whats paid in and what you get back. Its there to help people survive who have no income.
This is the point. Arguably there should be a link. Arguably someone with a large, and not easily reducable outgoings, who has also paid in large ammounts over the years should get a bit more back.martin84 said:
cymtriks said:
Most people can't change the big items. In most cases a huge portion of outgoings will be mortgage, food, gas, electric, water, telephone, car, council tax and petrol. Some of these are very difficult to cut back on quickly and though some can be cut quickly the initial savings would be minimal. It could take many months for example to sell your house, car and see a change in utility bills. Also there will be charges to reduce some of these outgoings such as estate agent fees to downsize a house.
All of that is their problem and most of them are expenses everybody has. Why should the state subsidise these people to make that transition easier for them? I repeat my question from earlier, do you think that the moment someone gets into the 50k bracket - for arguments sake - that they have a god given entitlement to remain there for the rest of their lives? Its unfortunate for anyone who ends up in such a situation but its not the states job to subsidise middle income earners who cant handle a sudden transition. When i said on here that people were entitled to a roof over their head, food, water and an education i was told i had a sense of entitlement. Now im being told middle income earners deserve more in benefits to make their life run smoother if they lose their jobs because they should be entitled to more from the state.I think I've answered your question, yes, I do think the state should give a bit more to those who have paid a bit more in. This is not the same as saying they should be entitled to remain there for the rest of their lives though, strangely, it seems that those who contribute nothing are allowed to claim for as long as they like.
The bit you are avoiding regarding entitlement is the issue of contribution. Why shouldn't someone who has contributed a lot feel entitled to a bit more?
martin84 said:
cymtriks said:
I don't think anyone supporting a family on that would be putting much aside, certainly not more than a few months salary at any one time.
Thats a lot more than a family on half that manage to put away. And if a family on half that were to have one of the parents lose their job the chances are they'll be entitled to nothing (except the JSA 6 months) due to the other partners income. You'll probably say 'but they had a small house and not much else to start with anyway' but when you're on very little, having even less has a bigger impact regardless of circumstance. I dont view having to swap two X5's for one normal car to be the sort of outrageous sacrifice the state should be rushing to prevent people having to do.Your remark about two X5's is a straw man argument. On the income levels mentioned a family wouldn't have one let alone two.
martin84 said:
cymtriks said:
Your apparent belief that having paid in entitles you to nothing extra out is exactly what causes immense resentment of the current system. If you want a society in which the poorer classes are not vilified by everyone else you may want to consider this.
Thats not what causes immense resentment of the current system at all. It may be in your mind but thats not what the public are saying whatsoever. The resentment of the current system is that it gives certain people the option of staying on state dependance because its not worth doing anything else.martin84 said:
The system should be a safety net to provide the bare minimum to those who need it. The system should not be a relief fund to prevent middle earners from having to drop down a bit in their lives due to unfortunate circumstances. If we do that then where do we draw the line and where does it end? £400,000 in benefit for Fred Goodwin? Taxpayer funds Rebecca Brooks' Cottswolds lifestyle after News International resignation? Possibilities would be endless.
Once again you resort to straw man arguments.No one is advocating a relief fund for millionaires, simply that being entitled to a bit more back having paid a lot more in would be fair.
What would be so terrible about making national insurance a fixed amount for everyone which paid a fixed amount if you were made unemployed? That's how insuring everything else works, the amount you pay in determines the amount you get out, and in this case the worst off are probably getting a better deal than the middle classes as they're (in many instances) at a higher risk of needing to claim yet paying in the same amount.
If you feel that it should be based on a percentage of your income, why shouldn't the relative payout you get should you need to claim not be bigger? If I paid in £1000/month into a private life insurance policy I'd get more out than if I paid in £10/month, why should this form of insurance be any different?
If you feel that it should be based on a percentage of your income, why shouldn't the relative payout you get should you need to claim not be bigger? If I paid in £1000/month into a private life insurance policy I'd get more out than if I paid in £10/month, why should this form of insurance be any different?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff