Inequality

[Egbert]

So the gap between the rich and the poor is wider than it was 40 years ago, despite the efforts of our government to make it narrower. Should we be surprised?

Hardly, because some of the measures introduced to address the problem have in fact made it worse. Minimum wage, for instance, may have benefitted a few. But it has made others worse off because they are not working at all.

This is not just a matter of money - it is also a matter of self respect. Who feels better, the unemployed or the person on low wages but in work? I know which I would sooner be.

In any case, can we be sure that a wide gap between the rich and the poor is not a good thing. The important thing is not the gap but the position of those at the bottom of the pile.

[Wireless]

Your last sentence is the key.Everyone's income has gone up but the income of those at the top has rocketed meaning the gap has widened .It's not an easy problem to solve ,most voters don't want to pay more for people on benefits and Britain has a vast low paid and part time workforce.When factories in the Far East can knock out products and pay workers one tenth of what UK companies pay that situation is only going to get worse.

[asperity]

The problem is that the lowest paid are paying a vastly disproportionate amount of tax. The more you are paid the more tax becomes an irrelevancy. Take the lowest paid out of tax altogether, forget the "tax credit" lunacy and let poorly paid workers keep their pay.

[Eagle]

It is a national disgrace that workers are getting less than dole scroungers.

[Wireless]

It is a national disgrace that workers are getting less than dole scroungers.

 

In the vast majority of cases that isn't true.A single person on benefit gets about ? 50 aweek, a couple about ?100.That's the least the state says you should live on-I doubt very much any workers are getting less than that when you add in in work benefit top ups.

[LymmParent]

Got a nephew in his gap year and looking for work at the mo. He gets ?64.30 Jobseekers Allowance, due to go up by a scary ?1.15 in April. He was earning more than that for two shifts a week in one of the local pubs. Plus tips.

[Eagle]

You can doubt all you want wireless but how many workshy couples do you know who get only ?100.

[Paul Kennedy]

Got a nephew in his gap year and looking for work at the mo. He gets ?64.30 Jobseekers Allowance, due to go up by a scary ?1.15 in April. He was earning more than that for two shifts a week in one of the local pubs. Plus tips.

 

I'm amazed that he gets any jobseekers allowance at all given he is having a gap year. I thought such payments were linked to prior NI contributions.

[Paul Kennedy]

The problem is that the lowest paid are paying a vastly disproportionate amount of tax. The more you are paid the more tax becomes an irrelevancy. Take the lowest paid out of tax altogether, forget the "tax credit" lunacy and let poorly paid workers keep their pay.

 

Totally agree, and as I've said before there should be no tax or NI paid on earnings below the minimum wage annual equivalent which I think is about ?12,000

[Aview]

The problem is that the lowest paid are paying a vastly disproportionate amount of tax. The more you are paid the more tax becomes an irrelevancy. Take the lowest paid out of tax altogether, forget the "tax credit" lunacy and let poorly paid workers keep their pay.

 

Totally agree, and as I've said before there should be no tax or NI paid on earnings below the minimum wage annual equivalent which I think is about ?12,000

 

Paul are you aware that if your partner/spouse is working and their wage is a ?penny? over the threshold for contributions and your partner or spouse is unemployed or on Jobseekers for longer than 6 months they will not receive any benefits, the only entitlement they get is a National Insurance "stamp" and I am not sure once taken off the ?Jobseekers? that they do not appear on any unemployment statistics, maybe someone can correct me and the above points?

[LymmParent]

Got a nephew in his gap year and looking for work at the mo. He gets ?64.30 Jobseekers Allowance, due to go up by a scary ?1.15 in April. He was earning more than that for two shifts a week in one of the local pubs. Plus tips.

 

I'm amazed that he gets any jobseekers allowance at all given he is having a gap year. I thought such payments were linked to prior NI contributions.

 

He's been a worker bee, weekends and holidays, but as I understand the endless paperwork, there are two kinds of Jobseekers Allowance - one is contribution based, the other is income based.

[asperity]

The problem is that the lowest paid are paying a vastly disproportionate amount of tax. The more you are paid the more tax becomes an irrelevancy. Take the lowest paid out of tax altogether, forget the "tax credit" lunacy and let poorly paid workers keep their pay.

 

Totally agree, and as I've said before there should be no tax or NI paid on earnings below the minimum wage annual equivalent which I think is about ?12,000

 

Will "call me Dave" and George do anything about this disgrace if they get into government?

[Paul Kennedy]

One lives in hope, one lives in hope.

 

The tax and benefits system is a right shambles......pay tax then claim it back in benefits etc, and the cynic in me says that it has been done to create the "Client State" and very helpul when a Government facing a General Election wants to put fear in to the voter's minds...well those who are on benefits anyway....and those who work in the benefits system as it has become a big "industry"

[Paul Kennedy]

The problem is that the lowest paid are paying a vastly disproportionate amount of tax. The more you are paid the more tax becomes an irrelevancy. Take the lowest paid out of tax altogether, forget the "tax credit" lunacy and let poorly paid workers keep their pay.

 

Totally agree, and as I've said before there should be no tax or NI paid on earnings below the minimum wage annual equivalent which I think is about ?12,000

 

Paul are you aware that if your partner/spouse is working and their wage is a ?penny? over the threshold for contributions and your partner or spouse is unemployed or on Jobseekers for longer than 6 months they will not receive any benefits, the only entitlement they get is a National Insurance "stamp" and I am not sure once taken off the ?Jobseekers? that they do not appear on any unemployment statistics, maybe someone can correct me and the above points?

 

I've heard that, and I think you are right with your latter point.

 

There is a 40 page pdf that you can look at:

 

http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/JCP/stellent/groups/jcp/documents/websitecontent/dev_015482.pdf

 

PS Just noticed this section

 

Local Authority Councillors

Q: Can I still get Jobseeker?s Allowance if I am a Local Authority Councillor?

A: Yes. You can be paid Jobseeker?s Allowance if you are free for, and actively seeking, work. The time you spend on your duties does not count as paid work.

Q: Can I still get Jobseeker?s Allowance if I am paid a basic allowance?

A: The basic allowance is counted as earnings. All councillors get this allowance for the time they spend on their duties. Some payments, such as travelling expenses, may be ignored. You must talk to Jobcentre Plus about how it affects your Jobseeker's Allowance.

[Paul Kennedy]

Just seen the following:

 

An astonishing ?1million in benefits has been wrongly paid to just ten people.

Bungling officials sent out the money in income support payments to people who were not entitled to it.

The highest overpayment was a massive ?136,567 to one person.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246613/Blunders-meant-1m-paid-benefits-just-TEN-people.html#ixzz0dvGXCtSP

 

 

What's the betting that it won't get recovered.

[Wireless]

Just seen the following:

 

An astonishing ?1million in benefits has been wrongly paid to just ten people.

Bungling officials sent out the money in income support payments to people who were not entitled to it.

The highest overpayment was a massive ?136,567 to one person.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246613/Blunders-meant-1m-paid-benefits-just-TEN-people.html#ixzz0dvGXCtSP

 

 

What's the betting that it won't get recovered.

 

If you open up a Daily Mail link fairies will die.

[Wireless]

You can doubt all you want wireless but how many workshy couples do you know who get only ?100.

 

I've no idea as I never ask them.If they are getting more where are they getting it from? The benefit level is set to need.

[Eagle]

I think you should change your name to 'naive'

[Sha]

The problem is that the lowest paid are paying a vastly disproportionate amount of tax. The more you are paid the more tax becomes an irrelevancy. Take the lowest paid out of tax altogether, forget the "tax credit" lunacy and let poorly paid workers keep their pay.

 

Totally agree, and as I've said before there should be no tax or NI paid on earnings below the minimum wage annual equivalent which I think is about ?12,000

 

Whilst highering the tax threshhold may see like the most obvious answer I don't think it really adresses the problem.

The real problem is that under the present system a small percentage of the population is being allowed to rip us all off!

 

Any decrease in tax collected will only end up having to be paid out by the rest of the population on higher rates. The reason that the better paid or 'middle class' are so resistant to efforts to help the poorer are because they perceive that they are the ones who will have to pay for it and thus their lifestyles will be negatively affected. Which would actually probably happen if the tax threshhold was highered.

A better solution I would think would be to higher the minimum wage to a rate appropriate to actual living needs (without any 'benefits' 'tax credits' or whatever being needed.

This would need to be done in conjuntion with a system of tax relief for small/moderate sized companies who genuinely couldn't afford to pay the higher wage.

The result would be that only the very largest, most profitable organisations, who can well afford, would suffer any loss to profits. For other companies there should be no loss.

The system as it stands allows these large organisations to profit at all our expense, it is about time that changed! .

 

Also, those companies employing cheaper labour outside of the country such as in call centres etc (who are robbing our workers of jobs,( the cost of which in unemployment benefit is picked up by those in work) should be taxed on "imported services" to a rate equivalent to the cost of employing a British worker. By taking the ludicrous profit out of this practise it should reduce it enough to enable us to get our workers into employment.

 

Result win win situation for everyone! (except of course the small percentage of Fat Cats who have ripped us all off for long enough!)

[Paul Kennedy]

Any decrease in tax collected will only end up having to be paid out by the rest of the population on higher rates.

 

No it won't because the reduction in tax collected will be offset by a reduction in benefits paid out. What I have suggested in an earlier post is a simplification of the tax and benefits system and nothing more, whereby instead of the daft system that we have now where those on modest incomes pay tax and then to make up their income they claim benefits, I am suggesting that they don't pay tax in the first place, but neither do they claim benefits or if they do they are at a greatly reduced level.

 

Your most recent post deals with wealth redistribution, which alas would not work in the way that you advocate.

[LymmParent]

Blimey Paul, the last thing you want to do is simplify the tax system. There'd be mass unemployment amongst accountants if we could all make sense of the sums and do our own tax dodging!

[Paul Kennedy]

Crikey your right LP, as well as loads of civil servants who work in the benefits system.

[LymmParent]

Some of them actually WORK? I thought that was just a nasty rumour.....

[Dizzy]

Maybe a start of simplifying the tax system would also be to abolish the fact that now any self employed type person has to complete all their self assessment returns and other tax/company type returns online.

 

For anyone who finds computers slightly daunting the whole process of the various registration processess, validation, user codes and then activation codes for each seperate entity etc etc can be a complete and utter nightmare let alone working it all out

 

They either have to struggle through somehow or often employ costly accountants to do it for them and in most cases pay way over the odds for something that should be (and is if you know what you are doing ) very straight forward

[asperity]

How much does an accountant charge for doing your tax (if you don't mind me asking)?