Higher Benefits for former Taxpayers

[CatfordCat]

A few thoughts -

At present, there are slightly different rules for 'contributions based' benefits (i.e. relating to your national insurance contributions over the last X amount of time) and 'means tested' benefits (i.e. related to your household circumstances / income.)

If you have sufficient NI contributions, you can get JSA / ESA for (I think) a year without any reference to any 'capital' (e.g. your redundancy payment) or your partner's financial circumstances.

Once that time ends, or if you don't have sufficient NI contributions, your partner's income is taken into account as well.

I seem to remember that in the early 90s, the contributions based version of whatever the dole was called then, was a few pounds a week higher than the means tested version.

However, that few pounds a week meant you weren't eligible for free prescriptions etc, or for assistance with mortgage interest payments, or if you were renting, you'd lose most of the extra in reduced housing benefit. That may be one of the reasons why the two amounts are now the same.

As for some of the other issues raised (and I'm not going to quote, as I don't want to personalise this)

The range of people who haven't worked is wider than some people imagine - how about (for example) people who have not been able to work because they have full time caring responsibilities for a disabled child / partner / elderly relative?

Short of asking for a lifetime account of income / expenditure, how do you tell which pensioners are skint because they have been in crap paying jobs for most of their working life and which have spent it on luxuries?

And also, a few people are behaving just how the tories want - scapegoating and trying to make distinctions based on 'deserving / undeserving poor'.

It's amazing how the tories' very rich friends who own most of the media have persuaded so many people that asking "why can't i have a fair share?" is "the politics of envy" and thinking "those people have slightly more than me - they should have it taken away from them" is somehow "fairness"

So long as us plebs fight among ourselves rather than ask any questions about the very rich that is...

 

[WillPS]

And even more for UK Taxpayers of 10 years plus standing

With regard to Pensions they are the single highest drain on the Social Security purse.

If Pensioners Benefits were not so good would it encourage people to provide for their own retirement rather than "*****ng it up against the wall" and in the process saving money ?

I don't buy that. The point of benefits isn't to deliver a rebate to taxpayers, it's to act as a stopgap for those temporarily without employment (normally contributions based) and otherwise a lifeline.

If you've been paying income tax for 10 years plus (which again would create a new arbitrary theoretical age of 26 at which you would have more cash, based on working age of 16), you could really have potentially saved a little something to keep you afloat, no?

 

[radamfi]

It is normal in Europe outside the UK and Ireland to get unemployment benefit equivalent to a large proportion (more than 50%, often much more) of your last salary for an extended period of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits

This encourages people to get the best job they can and discourages having years on the dole.

By contrast, in the UK you only get £71 per week no matter how much you got previously.

 

[ainsworth74]

By contrast, in the UK you only get £71 per week no matter how much you got previously.

Assuming you're 25 or over, otherwise its £56...

 

[Donny Dave]

As for saving money it's impossible for a lot of people who are living paycheck to paycheck - these are the ones that need the most support

I wouldn't say it's impossible, just difficult. But there are ways and means to saving, such as having a shrapnel jar (for all coins under 50p or £1 for example). Throw all your loose change into that, and you'll be surprised how quickly it can mount up.

Another alternative is a stocks and shares ISA*. Most of these accept contributions of £50/month. Is it that difficult to put aside £12.50 a week?

Anyway, those who do live from paycheck to paycheck, leaving nothing for savings and/or unexpected bills and payments, are possibly living beyond their means slightly. It would probably be more help to them if they were to go over all their expenses and see what they can cut back on.

* By stocks and shares, It doesn't mean that you buy shares directly, but instead invest in a managed fund that buys shares/bonds/etc with you being allocated "units"

 

[Stonesourscotty]

Thank god no one other than people have these universal credits there awful. money only once a month...?

 

[Butts]

Thank god no one other than people have these universal credits there awful. money only once a month...?

Yes, it's just like most working people get paid :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thank god no one other than people have these universal credits there awful. money only once a month...?

Yes, however do people manage being paid a salary once a month

 

[SS4]

I wouldn't say it's impossible, just difficult. But there are ways and means to saving, such as having a shrapnel jar (for all coins under 50p or £1 for example). Throw all your loose change into that, and you'll be surprised how quickly it can mount up.

Another alternative is a stocks and shares ISA*. Most of these accept contributions of £50/month. Is it that difficult to put aside £12.50 a week?

Anyway, those who do live from paycheck to paycheck, leaving nothing for savings and/or unexpected bills and payments, are possibly living beyond their means slightly. It would probably be more help to them if they were to go over all their expenses and see what they can cut back on.

* By stocks and shares, It doesn't mean that you buy shares directly, but instead invest in a managed fund that buys shares/bonds/etc with you being allocated "units"

I'll give you the shrapnel jars but I maintain it's impossible for some people. You're not going to save a penny when you can barely feed your kids or keep your house warm enough to prevent damp in winter. £12.50 a week almost covers a week's electricity (on a prepayment meter which are also designed to screw over the poor) or meals for a week.

People who are living paycheck to paycheck are arguably living beyond their means by definition and I've no doubt some could cut back in places but there may not be any sort of cutbacks available depending on circumstances and what exactly a cutback is varies from person to person (I deem broadband as a necessity, especially if you're looking for a job). I'm not having a go at you but saying possibly living beyond their means slightly is merely shifting the blame onto them which suits those in charge seeking to paint everyone poor as scroungers

 

[Butts]

I'll give you the shrapnel jars but I maintain it's impossible for some people. You're not going to save a penny when you can barely feed your kids or keep your house warm enough to prevent damp in winter. £12.50 a week almost covers a week's electricity (on a prepayment meter which are also designed to screw over the poor) or meals for a week.

People who are living paycheck to paycheck are arguably living beyond their means by definition and I've no doubt some could cut back in places but there may not be any sort of cutbacks available depending on circumstances and what exactly a cutback is varies from person to person (I deem broadband as a necessity, especially if you're looking for a job). I'm not having a go at you but saying possibly living beyond their means slightly is merely shifting the blame onto them which suits those in charge seeking to paint everyone poor as scroungers

Why don't we calculate what a living wage is and increase the pay of the lowest paid workers to this level as some councils already do.

In order to fund this income tax should be raised amongst those who earn enough to pay more.

The problem is everyone will consider that those earning just a bit more than them should be the people to contribute more.

Peoples social conscience does not extend as far as their wallets

 

[SS4]

Why don't we calculate what a living wage is and increase the pay of the lowest paid workers to this level as some councils already do.

In order to fund this income tax should be raised amongst those who earn enough to pay more.

The problem is everyone will consider that those earning just a bit more than them should be the people to contribute more.

Peoples social conscience does not extend as far as their wallets

That is something I'd love to see but sadly I can't see it happening in the absence of a left wing party. I'm also not an economist so couldn't tell you if it would work

 

[BlythPower]

In order to fund this income tax should be raised amongst those who earn enough to pay more.

Or, alternatively, we could just make sure that all those who should pay tax actually do so.

 

[Oswyntail]

....In order to fund this income tax should be raised amongst those who earn enough to pay more.....

One start might be to address the situation where someone earning, say £85,000 pa, and is the sole household earner, is (roughly) charged at the higher rate of tax on nearly half that, while a double income household where each earns £42,500 has none of it taxed at higher rate
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or, alternatively, we could just make sure that all those who should pay tax actually do so.

Ah yes, by clamping down on "cash in hand" work

 

[SS4]

One start might be to address the situation where someone earning, say £85,000 pa, and is the sole household earner, is (roughly) charged at the higher rate of tax on nearly half that, while a double income household where each earns £42,500 has none of it taxed at higher rate

Indeed but I fear that a household tax (as opposed to a personal tax) would encourage living apart - at least on paper. The DWP has trouble identifying people who are living together but claiming not to be (and vice versa) and that's just for those claiming benefit. I don't doubt that most people would be honest but I feel the rich are in a better position to exploit loopholes.

It would also lead to too much paperwork when a couple split or move in IMO.