Sick & disabled to be targeted in massive welfare changes.
Discussion
JagLover said:
98elise said:
In that case where would the 6k be coming from. For someone to receive a 6k income for no work, someone has to pay 6k in taxes to fund it.
Any scheme that pays someone to do nothing will result in some people choosing to do nothing.
It depends on the level at which the Universal basic income is set. Some of the levels proposed, as in the Swiss referendum are ludicrously high.Any scheme that pays someone to do nothing will result in some people choosing to do nothing.
We are discussing £6K a year. This is not necessarily the correct amount, but neatly subdivides to £500 a month. Which seems enough to fund a very basic existence in most parts of the country. Yes someone could take this and do nothing, but they could also receive state benefits now if they do nothing.
As to where the money will come from.
This is in three main areas. The elimination of existing tax allowances is one (such as the personal allowance) for a higher rate tax payer that will cost them up to £4,600.
The second main area is the elimination of many existing benefits and the administration of them.
The shortfall would likely to have to be made up through tax rises elsewhere.
The cost would be £6K times adult population of 40 million, or £240bn. If it were to be restricted to, say, exclude the elderly who would keep the current system, then that would be lower. It would be higher if a similar flat rate allowance were paid to children.
Total spending on benefits and tax credits is around £220bn, but this includes a number of benefits that would likely be retained under such a system such as the state pension (which is after all based upon years of contribution) and various disability benefits. The state pension is £92 billion of that.
There would be clear winners and losers under such a system. The main gainers would be those on low and middle incomes who do not receive much, if anything in the form of state benefits and tax credits.
The losers would be those receiving higher benefits than a flat rate allowance and those who would pay more in tax than the flat rate allowance in order to pay for it.
The incentives in the system would change massively. A two adult household would be far better in the new system as you would get two universal incomes. Under the current system a lone parent household is favoured as the benefits are higher. Also of course instead of facing benefit withdrawal rates of 63% for additional income there would be instead only be tax and then national insurance to think of.
Edited by JagLover on Friday 12th January 11:58
TooMany2cvs said:
knk said:
The numbers need crunching to see if it would work out. Bare in mind all are getting the £6k (or whatever it works out to) so "Somebody earning £20k currently pays £1,700 income tax. They would pay £3,500." but they would receive £6000 so would be up by £2500.
And you don't think that the minimum wage would drop (£6k/yr would be a reduction of a bit over £3/hr) to take that into account? And that would feed on all the way up the pay scale? If not, then isn't that going to be rather massively inflationary?knk said:
What does one have to earn currently to be a net contributor to the system?
Doesn't that rather depend on what they "cost" "the system"...?Cost to the system is interesting and mostly out of the control of the subject. It would be interesting to see how much someone has to earn in order to pay more tax than one receives in benefits, directly paid, rather than less tangible responsibilities of the state such as education, healthcare, and social care.
The state should provide for the minimum needs of those who cannot work. Perhaps families should consider their responsibilities in providing for the extras, over and above that?
That is how most of the world sees it where there is far more cohesion and social and familial responsibility taken.
That is how most of the world sees it where there is far more cohesion and social and familial responsibility taken.
TooMany2cvs said:
crankedup said:
TooMany2cvs said:
crankedup said:
Increase the pressure on tax avoidance is a good place to start.
Do you mean "avoidance", or do you mean "evasion"?They'll stop you saving in ISAs, and make you use a lot more petrol?
Some of that sounds rather nice, well no it doesn’t, perhaps the wine, yup settle for that.
knk said:
The state should provide for the minimum needs of those who cannot work. Perhaps families should consider their responsibilities in providing for the extras, over and above that?
That is how most of the world sees it where there is far more cohesion and social and familial responsibility taken.
The key word being ‘cannot’. That is how most of the world sees it where there is far more cohesion and social and familial responsibility taken.
REALIST123 said:
knk said:
The state should provide for the minimum needs of those who cannot work. Perhaps families should consider their responsibilities in providing for the extras, over and above that?
That is how most of the world sees it where there is far more cohesion and social and familial responsibility taken.
The key word being ‘cannot’. That is how most of the world sees it where there is far more cohesion and social and familial responsibility taken.
Like most welfare systems the benefits of implementing it massively outway the upfront financial cost, and putting in systems to interrogate and means-test people to make sure they 'deserve' their basic existence (assuming that you don't think they deserve that by virtue of existing in the first place...) just racks up more costs. Both in administration and detering people from claiming in the first place, which just racks up the greater costs to society.
2xChevrons said:
Like most welfare systems the benefits of implementing it massively outway the upfront financial cost, and putting in systems to interrogate and means-test people to make sure they 'deserve' their basic existence (assuming that you don't think they deserve that by virtue of existing in the first place...) just racks up more costs. Both in administration and detering people from claiming in the first place, which just racks up the greater costs to society.
But a universal income is simple to implement, simple to plan and budget for, and simple to administer, in comparison to most systems.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...Edited by coanda on Friday 12th January 23:45
Routemaster93 said:
"One example was diabetic war hero David Clapson who was wrongly declared fit to work, so lost his incapacity benefit and was forced to claim jobseeker allowance. He was sanctioned for 3 months after being late for a DWP appointment. He had no money and starved to death. They had even cut his electricity after he had no money to pay his electric bill and keep his life saving Insulin refrigerated"
Quite apart from the fact, as highlighted above, that his benefit cut had nothing to do with being assessed as fit for work, what exactly is the lack of refrigeration for insulin supposed to have to do with anything???Yes, insulin should be kept refrigerated, but you can keep it out of the fridge for a good month or so with no noticeable impact, and even after then, it doesn't suddenly stop working overnight.
If you go into severe ketoacidosis, that's not something you're unaware of, especially over time. My wife was throwing up last night and felt like crap most of today just as a result of a very high blood sugar from the insertion point on her insulin pump not working properly and sending her sugar high before she could fix it.
Having a sustained period of ketoacidosis is not simply down to not being able to refrigerate your insulin for a while. There's something definitely deeper behind that particular fact...
My wife works for the hmrc. They are endlessly cutting back on staff and offices.
On a related subject, occasionally she’ll deal with tax credits. Generally her view is that you can hear most claimants lying through their teeth and making it up as they go along. So much so, this is why the claims are endlessly stopped, more info required etc. Problem is people assume it’s an endless stream of fixed cash. The renewal months are chaos as all the nutters fail to do this and cry poverty when the free money stops coming.
It’s not, it’s a changeable benefit with yr circs. As universal credit is.
On a related subject, occasionally she’ll deal with tax credits. Generally her view is that you can hear most claimants lying through their teeth and making it up as they go along. So much so, this is why the claims are endlessly stopped, more info required etc. Problem is people assume it’s an endless stream of fixed cash. The renewal months are chaos as all the nutters fail to do this and cry poverty when the free money stops coming.
It’s not, it’s a changeable benefit with yr circs. As universal credit is.
austinsmirk said:
My wife works for the hmrc. They are endlessly cutting back on staff and offices.
On a related subject, occasionally she’ll deal with tax credits. Generally her view is that you can hear most claimants lying through their teeth and making it up as they go along. So much so, this is why the claims are endlessly stopped, more info required etc. Problem is people assume it’s an endless stream of fixed cash. The renewal months are chaos as all the nutters fail to do this and cry poverty when the free money stops coming.
It’s not, it’s a changeable benefit with yr circs. As universal credit is.
When you look at the results of the appeal board, it most certainly is a changeable benefit, though not fully dependent on ones changing circumstances, more like same circumstance different stance taken by the board itself.On a related subject, occasionally she’ll deal with tax credits. Generally her view is that you can hear most claimants lying through their teeth and making it up as they go along. So much so, this is why the claims are endlessly stopped, more info required etc. Problem is people assume it’s an endless stream of fixed cash. The renewal months are chaos as all the nutters fail to do this and cry poverty when the free money stops coming.
It’s not, it’s a changeable benefit with yr circs. As universal credit is.
Morally I am outraged tbh, I know that some current issues which are unrelated but form the basis of dissatisfaction, perhaps anger within sectors of the public. Here we perceive the continued clampdown in benefits awarded to those with qualifing disabilities and/ removal of the benefits. On the other hand we have CEO and directors being handed multi million pound bonuses for ‘improved’ Company performance. The improvements garnered off the back of a Government grant in the housing sector called right to buy.
No wonder increasing numbers of ordinary people are becoming wholly peed off with the so called ‘all in it together’ nonsense.
No wonder increasing numbers of ordinary people are becoming wholly peed off with the so called ‘all in it together’ nonsense.
TooMany2cvs said:
coanda said:
The HMRC are about the same size as the Army now. It's crazy.
You're going to need to explain that comparison to me...One deals constantly with absolutely everybody and every business in the country.
The other, in an ideal world, is sat around with nowt to do.
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
In some respects I agree with her proposals. There are many fakers in the system, playing it for all it's worth, and that's a disgrace. These people, with the risk of sounding all Daily Mail, belong in jail.
The flip side is that certain individuals need ring fencing away from this process (frequent assessments)
I have two disabled adult siblings. One blood brother with severe Cerebral Palsy, and an adopted sister with Downs, again at the severe end of the spectrum. Every 6 months my mother had to fill in a 32 page form for my sister to continue with her benefits. What the bloody hell were they thinking, she woke up one morning without her condition?!
Likewise my brother, earning close to £50K lost his motability allowance. Earning too much according to the rules. Fair enough you may say, but he lives in fairly central London, as he works for the BBC. He certainly doesn't have enough disposable income to fund a heavily modified car.
IMO strong opinion people with (amongst other conditions and illnesses) severe physical or mental disabilities, terminal debilitating illness, blindness, to name just some need leaving out of the process, and deserve care and compassion.
Miss Mcveys track record doesn't fill me with hope.
I believe Motability accounts for 1 in 10 of all new cars sold in the UK.The flip side is that certain individuals need ring fencing away from this process (frequent assessments)
I have two disabled adult siblings. One blood brother with severe Cerebral Palsy, and an adopted sister with Downs, again at the severe end of the spectrum. Every 6 months my mother had to fill in a 32 page form for my sister to continue with her benefits. What the bloody hell were they thinking, she woke up one morning without her condition?!
Likewise my brother, earning close to £50K lost his motability allowance. Earning too much according to the rules. Fair enough you may say, but he lives in fairly central London, as he works for the BBC. He certainly doesn't have enough disposable income to fund a heavily modified car.
IMO strong opinion people with (amongst other conditions and illnesses) severe physical or mental disabilities, terminal debilitating illness, blindness, to name just some need leaving out of the process, and deserve care and compassion.
Miss Mcveys track record doesn't fill me with hope.
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
......... my brother, earning close to £50K lost his motability allowance. Earning too much according to the rules.
It's not a "motability" allowance (there's no such thing). It's the award of higher rate mobility component of DLA (PIP) which allows access to the motability scheme.Disability living allowance (DLA), personal independence payment (PIP) and attendance allowance are payable whether or not you are working. They are not means tested, so earnings do not affect the amount of your benefit.
Them's the rules.
Edited by drainbrain on Sunday 14th January 14:34
I'm just going to take this post apart a bit. Don't worry, I'll leave all the bits here, so you can have them back afterwards.
They are very good at it, too. The system responds by withdrawing a grown up level of trust between two willing parties, and retreats back into treating users with no trust, strict regimes and loads of bureaucracy.
[qoute=crankedup]
On the other hand we have CEO and directors being handed multi million pound bonuses for ‘improved’ Company performance. The improvements garnered off the back of a Government grant in the housing sector called right to buy.
This seems a bit of a red herring. There has always been a small, powerful elite, and I would hazard there always will be. I don't see how the award of disability benefits will affect this elite in any meaningful way, or how the existence of the elite affects the award of disability benefits?crankedup said:
Morally I am outraged tbh, I know that some current issues which are unrelated but form the basis of dissatisfaction, perhaps anger within sectors of the public.
Sorry, I don't follow this at all..?crankedup said:
Here we perceive the continued clampdown in benefits awarded to those with qualifing disabilities and/ removal of the benefits.
I understand the aim is to keep the disability benefits where they qualify, and remove them where they don't. Wouldn't you agree this is the correct policy? "Clampdown" sounds emotive. This is just making sure policy is followed. I would say that clampdown should apply to all parties. But I work at a council, and can readily see those who basically have a full time career in playing the system. They are very good at it, too. The system responds by withdrawing a grown up level of trust between two willing parties, and retreats back into treating users with no trust, strict regimes and loads of bureaucracy.
[qoute=crankedup]
On the other hand we have CEO and directors being handed multi million pound bonuses for ‘improved’ Company performance. The improvements garnered off the back of a Government grant in the housing sector called right to buy.
Have you perhaps bolted a pre-existing grudge with ceo bonuses into this issue?
I also don't get the right to buy reference..? This is a generous award to council tenants allowing many working poor ( and some scoundrels) a huge slice of equity, and has little impact on property businesses ( yet alone the vast array of other businesses). Apart from perhaps reducing the stock of affordable housing and opening the door for large property businesses? But that seems marginal to me.
crankedup said:
No wonder increasing numbers of ordinary people are becoming wholly peed off with the so called ‘all in it together’ nonsense.
Pfft. No one ordinary believed that tosh did they? The tory govt are in it for themselves, but tory voters know they'll probably be better off as a consequence. Labour however are the tail being wagged by the unions, and just want to feed your money to their senior member structure. They're not in it "for you" any more than the tories are.
The welfare you speak of relies on actual productivity and wealth creation, and I believe in the longer term a corbyn govt would hugely reduce the welfare offer of this country.
I would be up for a universal income (with some regional variation I think) and perhaps a slightly progressive rate of tax thereafter, but not enough to start building in big welfare traps.
Ian
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff