Spot on. The unfairness and deceit are in and of themselves toxic rather than merely the effects.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The Labour Party under Andy Burnham
- Thread starter Cowley
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
In-work welfare benefits are a indirect employer subsidy.
It is amazing how many employers are happy to accept this subsidy whilst also railing about welfare payments.
There are sound reasons why it might be a good idea for the taxpayer to subsidise these jobs. But it is still a subsidy.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Starbucks do not pay one single penny of VAT.
Starbucks collect VAT from their customers and pass it to HMRC. But that is not the same thing at all.
Cash in hand is typically a sign that someone, or a third party, is being exploited, ripped off or otherwise been a victim of a major trading standards or even health and safety violation.
Since all these things are currently not being detected or punished in anything iike an effective manner (all the truckers involved in those massive illegal dumps will have been paid in cash) it would be bizarre indeed to start cleaning up the country by making sure these people are paying their taxes.
Since all these things are currently not being detected or punished in anything iike an effective manner (all the truckers involved in those massive illegal dumps will have been paid in cash) it would be bizarre indeed to start cleaning up the country by making sure these people are paying their taxes.
Burnham is a vast improvement on Starmer, especially on the intangibles (authenticity, relatability, charisma, leadership).
But is this enough?
No, but I also think he's better on both policy and politics.
But he's never going to truly thrive until he calls a general election. It will dog him. It will drag on him like an anchor. It will continue to offer an easy attack line for Farage, who now more than ever, is in need of such things.
My greatest fear is that he defends his delaying the election he needs through some heavily confected political defence, or a silly soundbite. Because his greatest strength compared to Starmer and Corbyn, being an experienced career politician, could turn into a weakness very fast.
But is this enough?
No, but I also think he's better on both policy and politics.
But he's never going to truly thrive until he calls a general election. It will dog him. It will drag on him like an anchor. It will continue to offer an easy attack line for Farage, who now more than ever, is in need of such things.
My greatest fear is that he defends his delaying the election he needs through some heavily confected political defence, or a silly soundbite. Because his greatest strength compared to Starmer and Corbyn, being an experienced career politician, could turn into a weakness very fast.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes. Taxpayers.
Any service that’s ‘not through the books’ is a mutual back scratch, such as ‘mates rates’, while there’s a reverse ‘through the books’ scam for assets alleged to be company property (e.g. technology or family cars and all their costs) when they are anything but, making all that expenditure tax-free.
The auto-defence of many pointing fingers at welfare costs in these hugely divisive times. But then finding scapegoats has a long history in politics.
Uncle Buck
Member
Cast your mind back to 2017. At the start of the year, in retrospect remarkably, Theresa May almost walked on water. She was miles ahead in the polls. She called an election. Everyone said she would win a landslide. She won a huge victory in the council elections. Then she lost her majority in the general election a few weeks later.
One reason for this was her shortcomings as a campaigner. Now I rather doubt that Burnham will fall to that level.
The other is IMO the calling of the election in itself. There had just been a referendum, now we were forced into another else for transparently self-serving reasons. This was the occasion on which Brenda from Bristol famously expressed her dismay at the calling of another vote.
Burnham should take heed of May’s terrible miscalculation and instead follow the path of Harold MacMillan and John Major who reversed their predecessors’ least popular decisions and won a majority later.
One reason for this was her shortcomings as a campaigner. Now I rather doubt that Burnham will fall to that level.
The other is IMO the calling of the election in itself. There had just been a referendum, now we were forced into another else for transparently self-serving reasons. This was the occasion on which Brenda from Bristol famously expressed her dismay at the calling of another vote.
Burnham should take heed of May’s terrible miscalculation and instead follow the path of Harold MacMillan and John Major who reversed their predecessors’ least popular decisions and won a majority later.
May and Starmer have a lot in common. Honest and hugely committed but the charisma of a plank and unable to get their party aligned fully behind them, preventing real progress.
Burnham at least has a good track record of making things happen and appears to have the dressing room - today.
However, the effect is not subsidising the business, but subsidising the customers of the business, either by lower prices, or as to whether the product or service can be afforded at all.
This is before considering whether a wage is low for a single 18 year old living at home, compared to a 28 year old with 4 children and a non working partner, trying to run a household..... (and all sorts of other combinations). What activity is actually getting subsidised, the business owners, the customers or the social arrangements of some of the employees?
But that can be said about many businesses - the owners decide what level of profit they want and charge the customers accordingly. Any taxes imposed on the business are effectively a cost which the customers have to pay. If the owners can't get that level of profit then they exit the business. If the customers don't want to pay the business tax then the business goes out of business. (And yes, I do realise that this may not always apply in certain monopoly business situations).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Is it legally fraud? No, otherwise the businesses (or at least some of them) would be prosecuted. If it is not legally fraud, then it is up to the lawmakers to make it so. I expect that would have been done already, if it was that simple. Which it is not.
Last edited:
I was referencing tax evasion (illegal) and not avoidance. The black economy almost matches the welfare bill at around 10% of GDP but guess which one gets all the attention?
contrex
Established Member
I have had some doubts about Burnham (summarised as same shed different sauce if you get my drift, squire). I am intrigued, though, to see that the Daily Mail is frothing at the mouth about who it says is 'set to be the 'brains' behind Burnham's economic agenda'. She (Miatta Fahnbulleh, MP for Peckham, Oxford PPE and LSE PhD) is, the DM says, 'the chief disciple of Energy Secretary Ed Miliband ... a champion of Net Zero ... from the hard-Left and has long promoted an agenda that is essentially Corbynista, if not Marxist, in scope and ambition'. To me, this is great stuff. If the DM is whining, she must be really good, and a quick Google for her name shows the Telegraph is raising a similar bleat. No doubt the Express soon. The DM opinion piece concludes 'Anyone with a pension or savings should be very worried.'. I have both and I am encouraged and hopeful.
Last edited:
martin butler
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 853
If the right wing media are already launching another hatchet job, then clearly, they fear what a competent leader would do to re energise the party,
As far as the media is concerned, Why not just call it getting our paymasters puppet into number 10, because forget all the scam talk about saving our women etc, and the false statements on migrants, and the now totally up-front racism , its nothing but white supremist's rehashing old nonsense.
There's less 900,000 "customers" of Motability, yes that's a big number, but then so is the 36.7 minion cars on the UK roads.
That means that, roughly, for every 200 cars on the roads 5 are Motability cars.
It's also worth noting that the average of drivers in general is around 50 vs 52 for Motability drivers, and so are likely to be older people than the general population.
The thing is, compared to an independent coffee shop they are paying less, as those will be paying those costs and probably employing more staff overall (at least compared to the number of coffees sold).
Wonderful, some left leaning Labour MPs are already aghast at Burnham:
I wonder how long Burnham will last? 24 months maybe?
Source:
Burnham’s pick for chief of staff led firm that advised BP, Apple and Amazon
Appointment of James Purnell, former chief executive of Flint Global, described by one Labour MP as ‘very bad sign’www.theguardian.com
Of course, it could be that he's trying to unite a broad coalition (also mentioned in the article).
One of the complaints is that other people have held shares in past companies, from the article it's clear that is intended not to be the case (in that it's said that he's sold them, but it's possible that not everyone believes that).
However, and putting aside any sceptical views about there may be weasel words, at least the intention is that it's different.
GusB
Established Member
Are you able to provide some concrete examples of people living "under huge state largess" who have "free luxury cars"? It very much sounds to me that you're repeating the sort of bile that the Daily Mail spouts without actually having any facts to back up your claims.
Sources, please!
Part of the increase is down to a lot of younger people with neurodivergent diagnosis being eligible - there are plans to change this so rather than being given "cash" they are provided with support, which should:
A) reduce the numbers startingto get the payment
B) potentially reduce the numbers overall in time
That claim is basically a myth.
Council housing isn’t a free perk - it’s scarce, tightly rationed support for people in serious need, with over a million households waiting, often for years. And “free luxury cars” aren’t free at all- disabled people trade part of their benefit to lease a car, and almost all are standard models, not luxury ones.
On top of that, fraud in disability benefits is extremely low, so the idea that lots of people are gaming the system just doesn’t match the data.
Last edited:
And if it is a luxury one they'll be paying on-top for it as well. Recalling that PIP is an in and out of work benefit if someone wants to pay extra (on-top of handing over their mobility payment) to have a nicer car why shouldn't they?
It's not limited to younger people is it?
"Why should a workshy mother of 8 have a nice car - just so she can drive to the shops to buy her weekly load of fags before going home to watch Sky on their 163-inch flatscreen TV?" #DailyMail
No but a decent chunk of the growth, especially in mental health cases which is winning a lot of ire from the right wing media and their hangers on, is with young people around ADHD, Autism and Anxiety/Depression (or some mixture). There's growth towards the other end too (50+ or so) but that tends to be physical health and, as they're closer to the demographic that is particularly valuable to the right wing media they're less likely to be directly targeted (and physical health tends to be seen as being more "proper" as disabilities go).
Indeed, but it's mostly rubbish. There are certainly some that game system very effectively* but they're a tiny minority. But people love using them as the exemplar to try and make the link in people's heads that everyone is on the take and that benefits are a life of riley and easy street. Right up until the well to do middle class person has something go wrong and discovered that they're going to get £424 per month to live on, oh and basically no help with their mortgage.
*I well recall the person I dealt with who just happened to children aged 20, 15, 10 and 5 and 0, conveniently at the time you could claim Income Support with no work requirements as a lone parent until your youngest child was 5 after that it would be Jobseekers Allowance, odd how the spacing of their children lined up so neatly. But in the hundreds of people I've dealt with she's the only one that I've seen like that.
TravelDream
Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 1,162
So almost a million cars on the road for free.
The Motability scheme, with its incredible tax benefits and lack of VAT on monthly payments, is symbolic to many people of the system and ordinary take payers being taking advantage of.
At the end of the day, my personal belief is people who get PIP can do with it what they wish. However, the huge tax advantages for cars with no adjustments whatsoever is clearly wrong. I find it hard to understand how some don't see how it gets other's backs up when they are struggling to put food on the table.
Unlike some of the ideological left we have on this thread, I grew up in a single parent household in a council house on a fairly rough council estate in a poor part of the country. I also have some severely disabled relatives. I know exactly what council housing is and what disability benefits are and what a help they can be. I agree it can be too limited. But, yeah, it can be free as we got it paid for by the taxpayers. Right to buy has made some people relatively well off, but it hasn't been a good programme overall.
Huge state largess is everywhere to see.
The triple lock is a prime example. Unfunded, unaffordable and unneeded. Everyone knows it, but it's too politically unpalatable to do anything about. The winter fuel allowance is another example - why should millionaire pensioners (as 3 million pensioners are) get a winter bung whilst others chose between heating and eating?
PIP is another prime example. Significant numbers with relatively low level issues (which have no real additional living costs out of the ordinary) and those who are relatively wealthy who get money which in reality they don't need. OTOH, there are people with severe disabilities and where PIP is actually too little as it is so poorly targeted. If you were/ knew people who were genuinely severely disabled as I do, you would also be disgusted by the system.
Nobody seriously believes benefit fraud is a fraction of a percent. That's not a right-wing/ Daily Mail talking point, it's lived experience.
And as I said in my post, if you re-read, yes, they are free cars. PIP/ Universal Credit/ the state pension etc etc. are not your/ my/ their money - it's the taxpayer's money people get for free. Sometimes very deservedly. Sometimes it's definitely insufficient. However, it's free money and a free car.
I know it annoys some when this simple fact is stated. Apologies.
It’s so easy to rail at welfare, it’s a soft target without a voice aside from a GE vote. Any savings are going to be a small percentage of the total whereas 100% of both the black economy and tax avoidance is a legitimate target, but the mouth foamers in the right wing parties or press dare not bite their hand that feeds.
If somebody is receiving state aid, at the expense of taxpayers, they shouldn't have spare cash for a flashy car! If they do, then they don't need the state aid! This is the issue in a nutshell - you have workers earning just enough to keep going and they are being taxed hard and relentlessly. A lackadaisical approach to funneling that tax towards those who don't really need it simply creates anger and resentment. Hence why Reform is so strong.
Some of those workers will be claiming PIP though? Or is the suggestion PIP should only be available for people out of work? Seems unfair and counter productive to say you cannot access additional support for your disability if you're working. Indeed that would surely encourage people to stop work?
Why do you assume other people don't share this life experience? It is possible to have similar life experiences but still have different political ideas; claiming intellectual or moral authority through lived experience is only effective if you know your opponents do not have this experience and that their analysis is deficient as a result.
Benefit fraud through disability on PIP is pretty low - PIP is difficult to game, and it's an in-work benefit, so it's entirely separate to people claiming they cannot work and then doing cash in hand jobs.
It should be means tested and have a much, much stricter qualifying criteria - which the Government was obviously planning to do until the left wing Labour backbenchers got involved.
TravelDream
Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 1,162
I can't see anyone here 'railing against welfare' whilst supporting the black economy. It would be madness to do that.
Of course government should put a lot of effort into tackling that and tax evasion. HMRC actually does a lot of work on it and has been successful, but the problem is that basically all the easy targets in the black economy have been looked at and it is very difficult to target some stuff. So saying we will get £X billion by doing that is a fantasy as it is so difficult and rarely comes to fruition.
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and common sense. Most people in Britain do it.
Pay into a pension? That's tax avoidance. Buy 200 fags or some booze in Spain to bring back? Tax avoidance. Have an ISA? Tax avoidance. Buy a 'children's meal' or clothes for an adult? Tax avoidance.
Are all these things 'legitimate targets' and how would you police all of them?
Closing tax loopholes is of course entirely sensible, but government needs to be careful as some measures to increase taxes will actually cut tax intake.
I don't discount other's experiences whatever they are.
But I feel like some on this thread attack those who criticize the benefits system as overgenerous in areas, poorly targeted and oversized as millionaire off-shore right-wing zealots.
In reality, many ordinary people have concerns and can both see the unfairness of the system and the reality that there is not a never-ending pot. PIP is also incredibly easy to game with coaching and the move away from in-person assessments, but that's another story.
If the worst comes to the worst and we have to go to the IMF for a bailout, the cuts imposed are going to be significant and punitive on many and that needs to be avoided.
The claim that PIP is “incredibly easy to game” isn’t supported by the evidence. DWP’s own figures show overall benefit overpayments were 3.2% in 2025–26, with fraud at 2.2% across the system, not proof of widespread abuse.
PIP assessments also still rely on medical evidence, professional assessment reports, and face-to-face assessments where needed; preparing for an assessment is not the same as fraud.
The IMF argument is a distraction. Fiscal responsibility matters, but a hypothetical bailout does not justify targeting disabled people or implying their support is a major cause of national financial risk. The real pressures are weak growth, borrowing costs and wider economic management - not disabled claimants receiving help with genuine extra costs.
Yes, these are all intentional systems put in place to incentivise behavours. That's very different to funelling money through half a dozen shell companies or the like to hide it from the HMRC.