Sick & disabled to be targeted in massive welfare changes.
Discussion
stevesingo said:
Misleading title/headline.
"Dishonest idle fold to be targeted in massive welfare changes" would be more accurate.
Some genuinely disabled and long term sick will suffer (only initially hopefully), but they are not the target.
"Dishonest idle fold to be targeted in massive welfare changes" would be more accurate.
Some genuinely disabled and long term sick will suffer (only initially hopefully), but they are not the target.
I would imagine it's hard enough being either disabled or long term sick.
Pretty sure being collateral damage does nothing to ease that hardship.
Hoofy said:
Bit mean of me, but I can't help thinking that someone in a powerful position needs to catch a spot of cancer and require some really fun chemo to the point of not being able to work for a decade due to some side-effects and on the verge of running out of cash. They just are so out of touch it is embarrassing.
Until we see a cabinet minister doing the job while, say, blind, or a US president in a wheelchair I agree entirely.Johnnytheboy said:
Hoofy said:
Bit mean of me, but I can't help thinking that someone in a powerful position needs to catch a spot of cancer and require some really fun chemo to the point of not being able to work for a decade due to some side-effects and on the verge of running out of cash. They just are so out of touch it is embarrassing.
Until we see a cabinet minister doing the job while, say, blind, or a US president in a wheelchair I agree entirely.A universal basic income is the solution, with a flat rate tax on any earnings. Combined with very cheap (and basic) state owned housing.
A safety net to look after the most in need, coupled with an incentive to work. The numbers need crunching.
For example: a basic income applied to everyone of £6k/pa, £500/m paid to all adults. Any income taxed at a flat rate of 25%; the more you earn, the more your income goes up and the more you pay in tax. But there is no benefit trap; there is never a point where working does not improve your lot.
A safety net to look after the most in need, coupled with an incentive to work. The numbers need crunching.
For example: a basic income applied to everyone of £6k/pa, £500/m paid to all adults. Any income taxed at a flat rate of 25%; the more you earn, the more your income goes up and the more you pay in tax. But there is no benefit trap; there is never a point where working does not improve your lot.
knk said:
For example: a basic income applied to everyone of £6k/pa, £500/m paid to all adults. Any income taxed at a flat rate of 25%; the more you earn, the more your income goes up and the more you pay in tax.
So a massive tax cut for higher earners is subsidised by an increase in tax for lower earners? Hmm...knk said:
A universal basic income is the solution, with a flat rate tax on any earnings. Combined with very cheap (and basic) state owned housing.
A safety net to look after the most in need, coupled with an incentive to work. The numbers need crunching.
For example: a basic income applied to everyone of £6k/pa, £500/m paid to all adults. Any income taxed at a flat rate of 25%; the more you earn, the more your income goes up and the more you pay in tax. But there is no benefit trap; there is never a point where working does not improve your lot.
The answer is indeed something close to this. I would tend to say its close to 30% tax and probably only above £15,000 income. A safety net to look after the most in need, coupled with an incentive to work. The numbers need crunching.
For example: a basic income applied to everyone of £6k/pa, £500/m paid to all adults. Any income taxed at a flat rate of 25%; the more you earn, the more your income goes up and the more you pay in tax. But there is no benefit trap; there is never a point where working does not improve your lot.
With minimum income level set at something plausible - your figure of £500 doesn't stack up well with say State pension at only £165. so I would guess its more like £250 - £300
Agree one of the biggest issues we have is between working tax credits, housing benefit and suchlike, we have created many traps where working harder leaves you worse off.
Gargamel said:
The answer is indeed something close to this. I would tend to say its close to 30% tax and probably only above £15,000 income.
With minimum income level set at something plausible - your figure of £500 doesn't stack up well with say State pension at only £165. so I would guess its more like £250 - £300
Agree one of the biggest issues we have is between working tax credits, housing benefit and suchlike, we have created many traps where working harder leaves you worse off.
State pension is more than £165 per month?!With minimum income level set at something plausible - your figure of £500 doesn't stack up well with say State pension at only £165. so I would guess its more like £250 - £300
Agree one of the biggest issues we have is between working tax credits, housing benefit and suchlike, we have created many traps where working harder leaves you worse off.
TooMany2cvs said:
knk said:
For example: a basic income applied to everyone of £6k/pa, £500/m paid to all adults. Any income taxed at a flat rate of 25%; the more you earn, the more your income goes up and the more you pay in tax.
So a massive tax cut for higher earners is subsidised by an increase in tax for lower earners? Hmm...A basic rate taxpayer not entitled to working tax credits would be far better off.
The universal basic income idea does not depend on any particular structure of the tax system and is compatible with a progressive tax system. Indeed, given the additional state spending, it is likely that taxes on the wealthy would need to rise to pay for it.
The great thing about Universal credit is that you can move steadily towards a Universal Income lite system, without the great upheaval of introducing such a system from scratch.
REALIST123 said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Hoofy said:
Bit mean of me, but I can't help thinking that someone in a powerful position needs to catch a spot of cancer and require some really fun chemo to the point of not being able to work for a decade due to some side-effects and on the verge of running out of cash. They just are so out of touch it is embarrassing.
Until we see a cabinet minister doing the job while, say, blind, or a US president in a wheelchair I agree entirely.However, I think at that level, they would have help. They'd certainly have the money to pay for a nanny/manny/carer.
It's when it goes on for a long time and you don't have a £70k job with two houses and all the other perks. I've witnessed people on very normal salaries struggle.
Rovinghawk said:
gooner1 said:
I would imagine it's hard enough being either disabled or long term sick.
Pretty sure being collateral damage does nothing to ease that hardship.
If they want to get free money they have to prove they're entitled to it- doesn't sound overly harsh to me.Pretty sure being collateral damage does nothing to ease that hardship.
TooMany2cvs said:
knk said:
For example: a basic income applied to everyone of £6k/pa, £500/m paid to all adults. Any income taxed at a flat rate of 25%; the more you earn, the more your income goes up and the more you pay in tax.
So a massive tax cut for higher earners is subsidised by an increase in tax for lower earners? Hmm...loafer123 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
knk said:
For example: a basic income applied to everyone of £6k/pa, £500/m paid to all adults. Any income taxed at a flat rate of 25%; the more you earn, the more your income goes up and the more you pay in tax.
So a massive tax cut for higher earners is subsidised by an increase in tax for lower earners? Hmm...An increase in ‘bonus’ tax is another rich pickings field.
crankedup said:
Increase the pressure on tax avoidance is a good place to start.
An increase in ‘bonus’ tax is another rich pickings field.
I agree on the former, but think you might have missed the point about a flat tax on the latter!An increase in ‘bonus’ tax is another rich pickings field.
The principle of this is that the tax take increases substantially as avoidance decreases and economic activity increases.
By contrast, the Laffer curve says that increasing tax rates reduces tax receipts beyond a certain level.
loafer123 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
knk said:
For example: a basic income applied to everyone of £6k/pa, £500/m paid to all adults. Any income taxed at a flat rate of 25%; the more you earn, the more your income goes up and the more you pay in tax.
So a massive tax cut for higher earners is subsidised by an increase in tax for lower earners? Hmm...Somebody earning £15k (roughly FT minimum wage) currently pays £700 income tax. They would pay £2,250 under this suggestion.
Somebody earning £20k currently pays £1,700 income tax. They would pay £3,500.
Somebody earning £25k currently pays £2,700. They would pay £4,750.
Somebody earning £30k currently pays £3,700. They would pay £6,000.
...and so on.
The break-even point comes around £65k annual income, a bit under £15k of income tax. Above that, people would pay less. Somebody earning £500k/yr would pay £123,500 instead of £210,800...
Given that the average annual income is £24k or so, the £6k would come from the massive amount of extra tax. Sure, reducing the "25%" wet-finger-in-air rate would bring that down, and you could make it break even. But the basic principle, of lower earners subsidising higher earners, would continue.
Rovinghawk said:
gooner1 said:
I would imagine it's hard enough being either disabled or long term sick.
Pretty sure being collateral damage does nothing to ease that hardship.
If they want to get free money they have to prove they're entitled to it- doesn't sound overly harsh to me.Pretty sure being collateral damage does nothing to ease that hardship.
don't suppose you are likely to be part of the collateral damage.
As for free money, you assume that the long term sick or disabled have never
held a job or paid taxes? I 'm all for wheedling out the freeloaders but I'm sure that
cab be sensibly done without punishing genuine claimants. However temporarily.
TooMany2cvs said:
loafer123 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
knk said:
For example: a basic income applied to everyone of £6k/pa, £500/m paid to all adults. Any income taxed at a flat rate of 25%; the more you earn, the more your income goes up and the more you pay in tax.
So a massive tax cut for higher earners is subsidised by an increase in tax for lower earners? Hmm...Somebody earning £15k (roughly FT minimum wage) currently pays £700 income tax. They would pay £2,250 under this suggestion.
Somebody earning £20k currently pays £1,700 income tax. They would pay £3,500.
Somebody earning £25k currently pays £2,700. They would pay £4,750.
Somebody earning £30k currently pays £3,700. They would pay £6,000.
...and so on.
The break-even point comes around £65k annual income, a bit under £15k of income tax. Above that, people would pay less. Somebody earning £500k/yr would pay £123,500 instead of £210,800...
Given that the average annual income is £24k or so, the £6k would come from the massive amount of extra tax. Sure, reducing the "25%" wet-finger-in-air rate would bring that down, and you could make it break even. But the basic principle, of lower earners subsidising higher earners, would continue.
It may be that the savings of administering a flat rate tax and a universal income, which would be expected to be low in comparison to a complicated tax code and multiple levels of complicated benefits and allowance, help balance books.
The system seems fair in that those who earn more will always pay more tax (in real terms, if not as a fraction of their income).
What does one have to earn currently to be a net contributor to the system?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff