Channel 4 - Skint

[keg]

The poverty trap isn't poverty per say but sadly Gordon the Gormless took away the 10% tax rate which made it easier to do what Mrs Chimp s doing and not getting penalised.

 

Like it or not, the minimum wage put costs up for all businesses.

 

The other point is that one system will not work for everyone.

[leeds chimp]

But not for the first 6 months as the Job centre will blame you for leaving your job so no benefits.

I am sure could work it that gets sacked then

 

 

That is what a poverty trap is, if you work harder/longer/get paid more then the benefits drop and may mean it is not viable for someone to work harder and get less. It is a badly set up system and needs some sort of diminishing scale that allows people to better themselves and not get less than on benefits.

exactly

SWMBO took on an extra day and now worse off due to that point

[Katzenjammer]

There was a time when the eldest didn't get it

 

"In the UK, child benefit is administered by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC). As of April 2010, £20.30 per week is paid for the first child (including the eldest of a multiple birth) and £13.40 per week is paid for each additional child.[7] The same amount is currently paid without reference to earnings or savings, although this will change from 2013. More than 80% of children are in families also eligible for means-tested child tax credit.[citation needed][dubious discuss]

 

The system was first implemented in August 1946 as "family allowances" under the Family Allowances Act 1945, at a rate of 5s (= £0.25) per week per child in a family, except for the eldest. This was raised from September 1952, by the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1952, to 8s (= £0.40), and from October 1956, by the Family Allowances Act and National Insurance Act 1956, to 8s for the second child with 10s (= £0.50) for the third and subsequent children. By 1955, some 5,000,000 allowances were being paid, to about 3,250,000 families.[8]

 

It was modified in 1977, with the payments being termed "child benefit" and given for the eldest child as well as the younger ones; by 1979 it was worth £4 per child per week. In 1991, the system was further altered, with a higher payment now given for the first child than for their younger siblings. In October 2010, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government announced that Child Benefit would be withdrawn from households containing a higher-rate taxpayer from January 2013.[9] After some controversy this was amended so that any householder with a least one person with prescribed income over £50,000 would lose Child Benefit by a taper which removed it altogether when the income reached £60,000. This came into force on 7 January 2013 [10]"

[Paddy Galore!]

henryd makes a very good point in his last post. But what is needed is a lasting final solution.

see you got a crafty one in there, they removed my post when i mentioned the final solution

Edited May 22, 2013 by Paddy Galore!

[flynny]

So it is only women that are to blame!

 

How about a vasectomy for men on benefit? It`s reversible like the coil. If you lose your job whether it is your fault or not, back on the slab, snip, snip!

 

Flynny for Fuhrer PM.

Whatever is required mate, it wasn't a dig at women, I could write loads of ways to sort it out none would work apart from making it as hard as hell to get a free ride, unapalomablanca( post 219) hit the nail on the head with that post, time for group hugs has long gone it needs drastic action NOW!!!!!!

 

Ps Henry'D if you read my posts , I'm on about scroungers not legitimate folk who have lost jobs etc

 

Flynny for PM bring it on!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited May 22, 2013 by flynny

[henry d]

Ps Henry'D if you read my posts , I'm on about scroungers not legitimate folk who have lost jobs etc

 

yet this is what the post said, that is why I wrote what I did.

 

Sod that you must have a coil fitted while on benefits thats the option or no benefits

 

It does not say scroungers must have a coil fitted.

[kdubya]

 

That is what a poverty trap is, if you work harder/longer/get paid more then the benefits drop and may mean it is not viable for someone to work harder and get less. It is a badly set up system and needs some sort of diminishing scale that allows people to better themselves and not get less than on benefits.

 

for once and god forbid I agree, I am truly sickened by some of the "let them starve" comments on here I dearly hope hard times fall on some and reality kicks in.

 

KW

[johnny]

Would it be better for social services to look after the babies until the parents until can prove they can look after them without benefits. Surley that may even give the kids a better upbringing rather than be dragged down by the parents.

May be this way the money that would be given as benefits would actually be spent on the kids

Edited May 22, 2013 by johnny

[Mungler]

for once and god forbid I agree, I am truly sickened by some of the "let them starve" comments on here I dearly hope hard times fall on some and reality kicks in.

 

KW

The 'documentary' is no doubt edited and presented to be sensational.

 

What I find interesting is the definition of 'skint' because no one on that program is truly skint. Anyone truly skint wouldn't have money for drugs (fags, booze, heroin, weed), a mobile, a f-off telly, an x-box, a Sky subscription, a ring on every finger and wouldn't be up the stick (thereby exacerbating a bad financial situation) or planning on having more. I suspect anyone truly skint would also be looking at more options to work / get more money / get out of the bad situation.

 

The 'safety net' has become a way of life.

 

Changes have to be made and you have to start somewhere.

[henry d]

Would it be better for social services to look after the babies until the parents until can prove they can look after them without benefits. Surley that may even give the kids a better upbringing rather than be dragged down by the parents.

May be this way the money that would be given as benefits would actually be spent on the kids

 

Where would they look after them?

 

How much do you think it costs to raise a child outside of the family?

[pegasus bridge]

Where would they look after them?

 

How much do you think it costs to raise a child outside of the family?

Social services should step in as early as possible and permanently remove the child (adoption) if the parent is unable or incapable or unwilling to responsibly parent. Too many children spend their formative years bouncing between half hit parents and foster care whilst social services persist in trying to keep the child with its birth parents . this all too often fails anyway and the child has missed out on the first three years of critical stability.

[overandunder2012]

Maybe a form of national service for under 21s

 

If your not working or at uni it might teach some a bit of decency and self respect

they wouldnt attend rather do a few months jail time

[henry d]

Yeah, but johnny is proposing ...

 

...until the parents until can prove they can look after them without benefits.

 

So how can that work out financially? Also how does anyone define responsible parenting, as yours and mine and the "experts" will differ considerably?

[johnny]

Where would they look after them?

 

How much do you think it costs to raise a child outside of the family?

I admit it won't be cheap but hopefully in the long run the kids would learn that sitting on your **** smoking drinking and watching Jeremy Kyle doesn't pay the bills, but also if the wasters thought there is no gain to having kids they might be a bit more carefull, so less babies

[henry d]

But some people genuinely can not get jobs on a consistent basis, or get made redundant, that means the kids yo-yo from parent to foster parent or do you just mean someone who is a waster?

[pegasus bridge]

Yeah, but johnny is proposing ...

 

 

 

So how can that work out financially? Also how does anyone define responsible parenting, as yours and mine and the "experts" will differ considerably?

[quote name="henry d" post="2174356" timestamp="1369261441"

 

It is not beyond the wit of man to devise a level of acceptable standards, below which the state would intervene and remove children.

[johnny]

Yeah, but johnny is proposing ...

 

 

 

So how can that work out financially? Also how does anyone define responsible parenting, as yours and mine and the "experts" will differ considerably?

If the parent/s can are working and can support them.

 

But take the 21 year old she has 5 kids now twenty years time how many will there be and how much will it cost the tax payer if they get in the same mindset that living on benefits is ok

[johnny]

But some people genuinely can not get jobs on a consistent basis, or get made redundant, that means the kids yo-yo from parent to foster parent or do you just mean someone who is a waster?

Atlast thats what the benefit should be for. Not people who don't want to work

[henry d]

Atlast thats what the benefit should be for. Not people who don't want to work

 

So how do we work out who is a "waster" ?

[overandunder2012]

 

So how do we work out who is a "waster" ?

pigeon watch votes on it

[Catweazle]

Just to put this all into perspective:

 

Joanne Gibbons was sentenced to community service for claiming income support while holding down two paid jobs. Through accumulated payments of £66-a-week, the court heard, she collected £3,140 to which she wasn't entitled.

Predictably, the Daily Mail is outraged. But here's the strange twist: had Gibbons claimed the benefits to which she was actually entitled, she could have collected £130 a week through family tax credits and child benefit. In total, Gibbons' fraudulent claims cost the taxpayer around £3,100 less than claiming what she was actually entitled to.

It's the reaction to Gibbons' claims which are particularly noteworthy. Matthew Sinclair, chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance – an organisation rarely troubled by wealthy people's tax avoidance – tells the Mail:

This quote suggests Sinclair is perhaps even less numerate than the "benefits cheat" he's deriding. Gibbons was entitled to £130 a week in legitimate benefits, while working on two low-income jobs. This total was higher than the £66 a week out-of-work benefit she was improperly claiming (though some of the £130 a week could be claimed in or out of work).

"It beggars belief that somebody going to the lengths of making fraudulent claims would have actually received more in benefits had they been honest.

"It just goes to show that the current system is broken and doesn't provide the right incentives for claimants to go back to work."

In what sense is a system which tops up low wages a disincentive to work? Sinclair appears lost in lazy rhetoric – an all-too-common failing when it comes to chastising the millions of families, most of whom with at least one adult in work, who rely on the benefit system.

The British public believe benefit fraud is a big problem. A recent poll by the TUC showed people believe 27% of the welfare budget is fraudulently claimed.

The reality is very different. Last year, 0.7% of total benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud, according to the DWP's official estimates. This totalled £1.2bn over the year. Nor is fraud getting worse – even against a background of benefit cuts and long-term unemployment fraud made up a smaller share of the welfare bill last year than it did in 2010/11 or 2009/10.

Indeed, welfare fraud is smaller than accidental overpayments due to error, which totalled £2.2bn (£1.4bn of which due to official error). It's also smaller than the amount of money underpaid to those entitled to it: £1.3bn.

In other words, if we wiped out benefit fraud tomorrow – but also eliminated the errors that deprive people of money to which they are entitled – the welfare bill would grow, not shrink.

In the context of the UK's £700bn public spending, and £150bn+ welfare bill (of which pensions and in-work benefits make up the substantial majority), benefit fraud is a relatively small revenue loss. But how does it compare to another textbook villain: tax avoidance?

Put simply, it is comparatively tiny. HMRC consistently estimates the UK's tax gap – the gap between what HMRC thinks it should receive versus what it actually gets – at more than £30bn per year. Others estimate this is far, far higher.

Of this, even conservative estimates suggest around a sixth – £5bn a year – is lost through tax avoidance, tricks to reduce tax bills which fall within the letter (if not spirit) of the law, but often fall outside what's regarded as acceptable by the public. A further sixth, at least, is estimated to be due to wholesale tax evasion: simply illegally not paying the tax that's owed.

These conservative estimates alone outweigh benefit fraud by a factor of eight, but this time not done in tens (or at most hundreds) of pounds per week by people struggling to get by; but rather by people who could afford to pay more, but prefer not to.

Benefit underpayments save us more money than benefit fraud costs us. By the most conservative estimates, tax avoidance and tax evasion outweighs benefit fraud eightfold. But the constant target of argument – "scroungers", "benefit cheats", and more, isn't the well-heeled middle classes who knock a little off their tax return, or the high-rollers with elaborate offshore schemes.

Instead, it's those at the bottom of society – for the government, perhaps, it makes it easier to sell the public swingeing cuts to the safety net that millions of families, both in and out of work, rely on to get by. For the Mail, it's easier to sell papers by buying into the easy preconceptions of their readers than bothering to challenge them.

Unfortunately, all too often, that's a view the Labour party – and others on the left – seem all too happy to go along with. If we must have national villains, surely we can do better than these?

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?source=search_app#gs_rn=14&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=iZrLQ98Y4d8nR4Wa8UsvJA&pq=guardian%20who%20would%20you%20go%20after&cp=38&gs_id=71&xhr=t&q=guardian+benefits+fraud+tax+avoid+hmrc&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=guardian+benefits+fraud+tax+avoid+hmrc&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46751780,d.d2k&fp=32be97c6ca09362f&biw=1024&bih=653

 

[johnny]

Now that's a job I would like.

From what I see on the tele they any every where, even in the village I live so shouldnt be to hard to sort the wheat from the chaff

[flynny]

 

Atlast thats what the benefit should be for. Not people who don't want to work

HEAR, HEAR, My points exactly,

 

ATB

 

Flynny

[flynny]

 

yet this is what the post said, that is why I wrote what I did.

 

 

It does not say scroungers must have a coil fitted.

 

Lets not get nit picky mate!!!! It's OBVIOUS my posts are aimed at sroungers, not legitimate folk who have come upon hard times,or the disadvantaged among us,

 

ATB

 

Flynny

Edited May 23, 2013 by flynny

[keg]

Does the fraud figure take into account those that are getting it who shouldn't or is it just the overpayment?.

 

The big difference is fraud vs avoidance.

 

There is a huge difference between avoidance and evasion. One is legal, one is not.

 

It is ok for them to quote what is the letter or the law and spirit of the law. It's either payable or not. Tax is not a maybe and if there are gaps in the law people will take advantage of it.