Cable Forum
Page 7 of 9 « First 3456 7 89
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33671028)

danielf 27-10-2010 00:10
Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35113966)

As a disclaimer though I think that benefits such as HB and JSA for the unemployed should be paid as a sunsetting % of the previous 2 years income prior to becoming unemployed and this fund should be ringfenced, that way at least some of an individual's taxes feel more like an 'insurance' and less like throwing money into a bottomless pit and people neither gain nor lose massively from spending a brief period on welfare, with the sunsetting encouraging a return to work sooner rather than later.
This is standard practice in many European countries (and I think it's a good thing). It'll mean higher taxes though, particularly for the higher earners who are less likely to claim this 'benefit'. Personally, I'd welcome it.

Ignitionnet 27-10-2010 00:27
Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35113968)
This is standard practice in many European countries (and I think it's a good thing). It'll mean higher taxes though, particularly for the higher earners who are less likely to claim this 'benefit'. Personally, I'd welcome it.
If higher earners are less likely to claim it there's less need to tax them highly as they are a lower 'risk'.

Taxes aren't higher in Canada with this and compulsory health insurance, single payer, contributions ring fenced directly from payroll taxes.

Chrysalis 27-10-2010 00:47
Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35113960)
It should also be noted that £21k is pretty much the median full time salary (before tax) in the UK. For the uninitiated: this means that 50% of the people in full time employment in the UK earn less than £21k. I consider myself firmly left of centre, but I cannot see any justification for benefits of that order being paid out to a family just because they have lots of children and live in an expensive area. It's a travesty...

Why should anyone be paid benefits so they can live in an area they could not afford if they were working? What incentive is there for these people to get back into work? As Ig says: it's an insult to the 50% of the UK population that earn less than that. Given the levels of deprivation that we have in the UK we really have worthier causes to spend this money on.
for what its worth I do think child related benefits are too generous, their needs to be a cap on number of children it will add support for.

in regards to housing costs there also needs to be a limit but it needs to be sensible, eg. the tories plan to have local housing allowance be set to the average of the bottom 30% of rents, that is not realistic. Simply setting as the average is enough it will cut off the most expensive places still.

---------- Post added at 01:47 ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35113966)
It being so late I'm feeling rather lyrical.

Welfare is a safety net, to catch people when they fall and stop them hitting the ground. It must never be a trampoline that puts people in places they wouldn't normally go.

Housing Benefit is the big thing here. Some who previously made 300GBP/week couldn't have afforded 400GBP/week rent, why should they be able to live in a property of that cost when others are paying for it for them?

As a disclaimer though I think that benefits such as HB and JSA for the unemployed should be paid as a sunsetting % of the previous 2 years income prior to becoming unemployed and this fund should be ringfenced, that way at least some of an individual's taxes feel more like an 'insurance' and less like throwing money into a bottomless pit and people neither gain nor lose massively from spending a brief period on welfare, with the sunsetting encouraging a return to work sooner rather than later.
NI is supposedbly like that in that if you fall ill eg. the government will take care of you with IB(ESA) but as we have learned with that they dont like to keep their word, will take the taxes but renegade on their side of the deal.

If I understand you right you propose JSA is paid out at a level based on previous income? (sort of like france) and also capped to 2 years? currently JSA is capped at 6 months if contribution based.

Ignitionnet 27-10-2010 00:52
Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35113975)
NI is supposedbly like that in that if you fall ill eg. the government will take care of you with IB(ESA) but as we have learned with that they dont like to keep their word, will take the taxes but renegade on their side of the deal.

If I understand you right you propose JSA is paid out at a level based on previous income? (sort of like france) and also capped to 2 years? currently JSA is capped at 6 months if contribution based.
Correct, say 75% of previous income for 6 months then kicking in additional back to work assistance programmes in addition to continuing to pay the 75. After say 12 months reducing the benefit by 5% per month.

This flexible only if job market conditions are critical in which case extensions to the 75% period are doable but only with authorisation via a Parliamentary vote, not just because the DWP say so.

Hugh 27-10-2010 07:12
Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35113975)
for what its worth I do think child related benefits are too generous, their needs to be a cap on number of children it will add support for.

in regards to housing costs there also needs to be a limit but it needs to be sensible, eg. the tories plan to have local housing allowance be set to the average of the bottom 30% of rents, that is not realistic. Simply setting as the average is enough it will cut off the most expensive places still.

---------- Post added at 01:47 ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 ----------



NI is supposedbly like that in that if you fall ill eg. the government will take care of you with IB(ESA) but as we have learned with that they dont like to keep their word, will take the taxes but renegade on their side of the deal.

If I understand you right you propose JSA is paid out at a level based on previous income? (sort of like france) and also capped to 2 years? currently JSA is capped at 6 months if contribution based.
Just to clarify, it's 30% of the local market rate, not the average of the bottom 30% - that would setting 30% as the top of the scale, and working out the median below that, which isn't happening.

Chrysalis 27-10-2010 09:48
Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35114008)
Just to clarify, it's 30% of the local market rate, not the average of the bottom 30% - that would setting 30% as the top of the scale, and working out the median below that, which isn't happening.
if its what you say that makes no sense.

so if the average rent for an area is eg. £400 a month they would only get about £133 a month in rent support?

no one is going to find a property for rent £133 a month in an area with an average of £400.

I am fairly sure its the average of the lowest 30%, and that is bad enough on its own as it is also not realistic.

local housing allowance itself I think hasnt suffered from this abuse, its only the old housing benefit system, so they have no real reason to reduce local housing allowance. I looked for my sister and found out the LHA rate for an area she wanted to move to, the LHA rate for a 2 bed house (on current benefits before this kicks in) was way too low for 'anything' on the market. The LHA rate was £520 a month, the cheapest property we found was £590 a month and the average I would say was about £650 a month. The reason been is they include housing association properties which moves it down a lot.

Hugh 27-10-2010 10:14
Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35114086)
if its what you say that makes no sense.

so if the average rent for an area is eg. £400 a month they would only get about £133 a month in rent support?

no one is going to find a property for rent £133 a month in an area with an average of £400.

I am fairly sure its the average of the lowest 30%, and that is bad enough on its own as it is also not realistic.

local housing allowance itself I think hasnt suffered from this abuse, its only the old housing benefit system, so they have no real reason to reduce local housing allowance. I looked for my sister and found out the LHA rate for an area she wanted to move to, the LHA rate for a 2 bed house (on current benefits before this kicks in) was way too low for 'anything' on the market. The LHA rate was £520 a month, the cheapest property we found was £590 a month and the average I would say was about £650 a month. The reason been is they include housing association properties which moves it down a lot.
No - if the median (please see below for the difference between median and average, which are different even though some papers use them interchangeably) rent is £400 per month, that is the median (it is halfway along the line of values); you don't then take 30% of that to get the 30th percentile.

The Guardian explains it much better than I could
Quote:
The median is sometimes referred to as the 50th percentile (ie, it's 50% of the way along your line of values). What the government proposes to do is to reduce that to the 30th percentile - 30% of the way along the line. The bottom line is that housing benefit will pay less out for the same accommodation - and the difference will have to be paid by tenants, many of whom live entirely on benefits (although Housing Benefit is payable for people in work – as well as the unemployed).

The CiH have worked out exactly what this means across the country - and this is the data we're bringing you today.

So, for a couple with three children in Grant Shapps constituency of Welwyn Hatfield, on the average gross salary for constituency (in 2009) of £575.60. Their income right now splits like this:
• take home earnings £438.25 (based on new increased tax allowance)
• Child benefit £47.10
• Child Tax Credit £55.15
• Total income £540.50
Their weekly outgoings look like this:
• Rent (at 50th Percentile) £212.88
• £28.73 need to pay in council tax (amount for Band D in Welwyn Hatfield)
• Housing Benefit before change £111.37
• Housing Benefit after change £82.61
They will have lost £28.76 in housing benefit a week - that's £1,495 a year. Their total disposable income after paying rent is £381.50 a month

*Average: add up all the numbers and divide by the number of numbers. example: 1-3-8-10-19; add them up equals 41. Divide 41 by 5 and the answer is 8.2.

Median: is the middle number or the average of the two middle numbers if there is no exact middle number. Example: 1-3-8-10-19; the middle number is the third number which is "8" which is the median. In this case the median has exactly two numbers on each side of it. Now if there is no middle number, such as 1-3-8-9-10-19 then average the two middle numbers, which would be an average of 8 and 9 which is 8.5.

danielf 27-10-2010 10:38
Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35113973)
If higher earners are less likely to claim it there's less need to tax them highly as they are a lower 'risk'.

Taxes aren't higher in Canada with this and compulsory health insurance, single payer, contributions ring fenced directly from payroll taxes.
The way I understand this works (in Europe anyway) is that you pay a fixed percentage of your salary towards insurance for unemployment. This means that higher earners will contribute more, but are less likely to claim, thereby subsidising lower earners. I don't object to this (being a higher earner), but I can see how some would. Incidentally, the way this works (or worked) in Holland is that you get 80% of your salary for a year, then 60% for another year, which seems a bit more costly than the Canadian example.

Chrysalis 27-10-2010 12:39
Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 
Hugh that makes grim reading.

People without children dont get child benefit and child tax credit to fall back on.

The idea of housing benefits is to cover 'full' cost of rent assuming there is not excess income. If this is a deliberate change to force people to use other income to pay towards rent it is wrong based on past principles of social responsibility. Basically they want to take down "the cost of living" allocation of benefits but would have been too damaging politically so this was done by the back door instead. Government's getting very sly now days.

Local housing allowance is becoming more and more of a bad idea, housing benefit should have been kept with the simple change of a hard cap put in place to prevent people living in rich mansions. If the government doesnt want to pay out high private rents they can either regulate the rental market or build more council housing.

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------

just seen this on the bbc news website, another one that I didnt know about.

"From April 2012 the age threshold for the shared room rate will rise from 25 to 35"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11633163

That is quite a change, if I understand it right it means anyone under 35, will no longer get rent to cover a 1 bed flat they will be expected to live in shared accomodation. The tories understand very little, there is numerous research that shows young single childess adults are the most worst off financially in the country. The age discrimination should be removed not raised.

Taf 27-10-2010 12:45
Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 
Sounds like we'll never get our kids to move out then..... so they can hang about and look after us in our old age.... then get booted out when we die as they won't be able to take over the tenancy...

colin25 27-10-2010 14:56
Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 
interesting

http://planetpmc.blogspot.com/2010/1...s-to-cuts.html

Hugh 27-10-2010 15:28
Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 
Yes, it is.

To paraphrase, we could help them deliver the cuts, but only if they don't cut us....

<cynic mode on>
No self-interest or (not so) hidden agenda there, then.
<cynic mode off>

NitroNutter 28-10-2010 00:57
Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35113604)
Calm down, calm down - you'll blow a blood vessel.

btw, I invoke Godwin's Law on this.
You can invoke whatever law you like, very few have ever suceeded in gaining redress against members of the UK government, besides whats wrong with aligning various tryannical eras, history is there to serve as a lesson which it cannot possibly do if it's never referred to, such a law as godwins law only serves to belittle constructive opinion when one has expired themselves of any further constructive comments and as such has no value other than to be a distraction from the subject at hand.

The systematic and progressive dismantling of the welfare state, which I hasten to add is not set to stop at the state benefit and disability/pensions system but will spread to all state run sectors from schools and hospitals to the courts and eventually even the emergency services will be to the detriment of Britain, the last two eras of capitalism under Blair and Thatcher has demonstrated pure capitalism is fundamently flawed for a variety of reasons and that is exactly why removal of the states safety nets despite their shortcomings and regulatory bodies however impotent they may appear will be with great regret to all.

Hugh 28-10-2010 07:36
Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 
"The systematic and progressive dismantling of the welfare state" - what are you on?

Some facts for you (I know you don't like these, preferring diatribes and polemic, but some of us base our discussions/propositions on the real world, rather than some Third International/CPGB version of it) -

Government Spending in £billion*
Department_____1990_____2000_____2007_____2010
Pensions/Welfare.....53.............125...........177...... ......222
Health....................29.............48....... ......94............120
Education...............25.............42......... ....75.............86

Obviously a new version of "dismantling" I hadn't come across before - "I am dismantling your house, but I am also, over 20 years, quadrupling the amount of money spent on it".....:rolleyes:

btw, don't you think you are being a little dramatic equating a democratically elected Government which is trying to balance a country's budget to provide a stable base for growth in the future (without building up huge debts and deficits which would have to be paid off by our children), with one that banned all other political parties, started a war which killed over 60 million people, committed extensive acts of genocide, and invaded Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Vichy France (and tried with Russia).

You appear to be comparing apples with giraffes, imho....;)


*source - UK Public Spending

Chris 28-10-2010 09:50
Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 
I think the user's signature is a useful clue as to why expecting his posts to be based on evidence and reason is possibly futile.

Quote:
I will never be liable to comply with ANY other user's demands to provide proof for my own views.
:shrug:


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:16.
Page 7 of 9 « First 3456 7 89
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum