Caring Conseravtiveism?

[nil_desperandum]

I've never understood how a man can pay taxes, AND claim benefits. It's a bureaucratic nonsense. The paperwork alone must waste millions.

Perhaps you are unaware that 11% of tax collected by the Inland Revenue comes from those who are on the State Pension?
Are you suggesting that the pension and winter fuel allowance etc. etc. should be means tested? or do you believe that those who are on the state pension should be exempt from tax?
It's not that hard to understand how some people on benefits will pay tax, indeed the vast majority of people who have ever had a child have both received a benefit and paid tax simultaneously.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Perhaps you are unaware that 11% of tax collected by the Inland Revenue comes from those who are on the State Pension?
Are you suggesting that the pension and winter fuel allowance etc. etc. should be means tested? or do you believe that those who are on the state pension should be exempt from tax?
It's not that hard to understand how some people on benefits will pay tax, indeed the vast majority of people who have ever had a child have both received a benefit and paid tax simultaneously.

Just a reminder that the State Pension is also classed as a benefit, therefore, adding to those on benefits who pay tax.

[nil_desperandum]

Just a reminder that the State Pension is also classed as a benefit, therefore, adding to those on benefits who pay tax.

Isn't that what I wrote? (Anyway - that's the point that I was making!)

[Colburn_Claret]

Perhaps you are unaware that 11% of tax collected by the Inland Revenue comes from those who are on the State Pension?
Are you suggesting that the pension and winter fuel allowance etc. etc. should be means tested? or do you believe that those who are on the state pension should be exempt from tax?
It's not that hard to understand how some people on benefits will pay tax, indeed the vast majority of people who have ever had a child have both received a benefit and paid tax simultaneously.

I mean the beauracracy of taking money with one hand, then giving it back with the other.
If we had a proper living wage, based on a married man with two children. He should receive no benefits, but also pay no taxes. People on the same wage but with only one child or no children, would get the same money, receive no benefits but pay taxes pro-rata. Anyone earning above the living wage would pay taxes.
The main aim would be to cut out all the waste on pen pushers required to oversee this shambles. Don't forget, the only reason for receiving benefits is because you don't have enough to live on. So why is someone who doesn't have enough to live on paying taxes.
Maybe it's me but I find it headshakingly stupid.

[Sidney1st]

The pen pushers wouldn't allow changes that would result in less of them.
Their survival instincts would kick in and they'd probably make the system even more stupidly complicated so they'd have to be kept on.

[nil_desperandum]

I mean the beauracracy of taking money with one hand, then giving it back with the other.
If we had a proper living wage, based on a married man with two children. He should receive no benefits, but also pay no taxes. People on the same wage but with only one child or no children, would get the same money, receive no benefits but pay taxes pro-rata. Anyone earning above the living wage would pay taxes.
The main aim would be to cut out all the waste on pen pushers required to oversee this shambles. Don't forget, the only reason for receiving benefits is because you don't have enough to live on. So why is someone who doesn't have enough to live on paying taxes.
Maybe it's me but I find it headshakingly stupid.

I don't necessarily disagree with your idea, but I don't really see how it would save on administration / bureaucracy. Every case would still have to be assessed on its merits.
One of the advantages of a universal benefit is that everyone gets it and therefore there's much reduced administration / costs. Of course the disadvantage of this is that some people may get benefits who don't need them (e.g. winter fuel allowances and TV license to millionaires), and some people will benefit who - arguably - don't deserve to. But the alternative is to have every benefit means tested based on an individuals circumstances, and a rigorous check on whether benefits are spent "appropriately". That's all a bit "Big Brotherish" for me, and if it means that a few undeserving "play the system" then I think we just have to - reluctantly - accept it. As has been pointed out, the percentage of "scoungers" is very small.
(And yes,I know - before anyone says it: one scrounger is one too many, but totally eliminating them is virtually impossible, and definitely not cost-effective).

[Hipper]

Don't forget, the only reason for receiving benefits is because you don't have enough to live on.

That was the theory but it's not how it is.

Not everyone needs child allowances, heating allowances, bus passes......... There are reasons for these payments which are beyond simply having enough to live on.

Whether there should be is a good question. I think it's down to the current sense of entitlement most of us have without regard to how it's paid for.

In my view if the state hasn't got enough money then the above three and others should be stopped.

http://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/pressre ... l/PR_21336" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[South West Claret.]

Before some people start to use the words "stop some benefits" for the masses they really should be saying have the large Companles and there interested parties payed there fair share of tax from there off shore tax havens..and not before.

[Sidney1st]

Before some people start to use the words "stop some benefits" for the masses they really should be saying have the large Companles and there interested parties payed there fair share of tax from there off shore tax havens..and not before.

Can't we have both?

Benefits needs sorting as does the tax evasion.

[Mattster]

Can't we have both?

Benefits needs sorting as does the tax evasion.

No! It's one or the other, everyone knows that!

[Imploding Turtle]

That was the theory but it's not how it is.

Not everyone needs child allowances, heating allowances, bus passes......... There are reasons for these payments which are beyond simply having enough to live on.

Whether there should be is a good question. I think it's down to the current sense of entitlement most of us have without regard to how it's paid for.

In my view if the state hasn't got enough money then the above three and others should be stopped.

http://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/pressre ... l/PR_21336" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

if someone doesn't use their free bus pass then it doesn't cost anything.

[Lancasterclaret]

You can't help thinking that the Tories know they have to raise funds, but can't go after business with what is going to be happening regarding Brexit.

Hitting the self employed is a bad idea on every level for the Conservatives, but the er, "will of the people" has made it impossible for them to avoid annoying some part of their support base.

I think its ludicrous to make it even harder to be self employed, though I do take the view that the Uber/Deliveroo system has made it inevitable that it would be targeted.

[JohnMcGreal]

Hitting the self employed is a bad idea on every level for the Conservatives, but the er, "will of the people" has made it impossible for them to avoid annoying some part of their support base.

I think it shows how confident they are that there'll be very few, if any ramifications of implementing such an unpopular policy.

There is no political party near them in the polls at the moment, so they know they've got a bit of room to turn the screw without any real consequences.

[Quickenthetempo]

You can't help thinking that the Tories know they have to raise funds, but can't go after business with what is going to be happening regarding Brexit.

Hitting the self employed is a bad idea on every level for the Conservatives, but the er, "will of the people" has made it impossible for them to avoid annoying some part of their support base.

I think its ludicrous to make it even harder to be self employed, though I do take the view that the Uber/Deliveroo system has made it inevitable that it would be targeted.

Self employed people cost the system loads in undeclared earnings.

[South West Claret.]

As I say "once" the people at the top have been made to pay their fair share of tax from there off shore activities then and only then will we talk about the rest of us.

The reason being is that they pay less tax in the first place "compared to the rest of us" so to compound the unfairness by avoiding and or evading tax is just rubbing it in, also by shifting there profits "from us by the way" out of this Country is equally wrong.

[Lancasterclaret]

Self employed people cost the system loads in undeclared earnings.

They also don't have job security, paid holidays and sick pay to start with.

If they do it correctly and legally, then they don't cost the system, and actually benefit to tunes of billions a year in tax.

But I'm sure, just like the benefits debate, there are people who don't obey the rules.

[Paul Waine]

I was wondering where the budget debate was....

Why is increasing Class 4 NIC unpopular? I'd hazard a guess that most MPs and most journalists had not heard of Class 4 NIC before yesterday's budget.

Did anyone think John McDonnell was being ironic when he suggests tax changes such as 1% increase in Class 4 NIC should have been debated and consulted before tax change announced? Does he not remember Gordon Brown's pension dividends tax raid in 1997 - the major reason why all pensions (both defined benefit and defined contribution) are under pressure now - or Labour's hiking of Class 1 NIC (both employees and employers)?

I know John McD would say that raising tax rates for the "higher paid" doesn't need prior consultation, so I quoting two changes where taxes are paid by everyone.

[Paul Waine]

What do we all think about George Osborne earning £650,000 p.a. working for Blackrock - and paying 45% income tax, plus 2% NI, plus 13.8% Employers NI? HMRC will collect a little under £400,000 from George's 4 days a month work. If he does this for 2 or 3 years he will have paid back all the pay he received for the time he was Chancellor.

[evensteadiereddie]

And you reckon he'll pay his taxes, do you ? OK..
When is Gideon due to inherit the family title and wealth - it can't be long now.

[Paul Waine]

And you reckon he'll pay his taxes, do you ? OK..
When is Gideon due to inherit the family title and wealth - it can't be long now.

GO has registered his Blackrock employment and salary in Parliament's register of members interests. I think we can all the confident that he will pay all the tax due.

Of course, he may arrange his affairs differently than as a direct employee. (Maybe he will follow the procedures that Tony Blair used, who knows). The little change in Class 4 NIC will reduce the benefit of claiming to be self-employed.

I'm sure the press will look closely at everything he does. I'm less confident that the will report it accurately.

I guess people inherit when someone else dies... I wish both his parents a continually strong and healthy lifeline.

[South West Claret.]

Gideon and Tory Blair in the same sentence, spot the difference.. not a lot as someone once said.

[timshorts]

Defence
Education
Health
Pensions
Benefits
Housing
Policing and prisons
National debt

Answers anyone ?

I think Jeremy Corbyn sort of accidentally answered this one the other day when he indicated that the country needed to sort out it's tax system.

All politicians care. Unfortunately the huge majority of them care for the wrong things in the wrong priorities. Put these three in order:-

1. Getting my party into power
2. Getting personal advancement
3. The future of the UK

Well, most of us- but few of the (is it 655?) that are members of the House of Commons) would have number 3 top of the list, but as politicians don't - and care more about 1 and 2, we have ended up in a sh1t mess.

Most of this has been caused by earlier generations passing their sh1t on to those coming after them. So we've had the retirement age difference between women and men bizarrely being maintained for decades, retirement age in general being too low for decades, final salary pensions for civil servants teachers et al when there wasn't money set aside to pay for them and so on.

Right now, we have a tax system that is crying out for income tax rises as our spending outweighs our sales catastrophically, but no-one will address it as putting up income taxes (whether it is for the high earners or the masses) loses votes and any party that does it knows they won't get back into power.

It is the wrong people that will have to pay for this mess. The old have organised it over the last few generations (oh, and thanks for Brexit, by the way, old-timers, but hey, a lot of you will be dead by the time the sh1t really hits the fan), and the young will end up having to pay for it.

I don't want to pay more income tax, but I know that I ought to be. We will keep going like this until either the main parties put their heads together and agree to put up taxes with cross party support and for the national good (like that's going to happen), or we end up as the new Greece. But at least the Greeks have a nice climate.

[South West Claret.]

Not a lot wrong with the climate down here old son

[Paul Waine]

I think Jeremy Corbyn sort of accidentally answered this one the other day when he indicated that the country needed to sort out it's tax system.

All politicians care. Unfortunately the huge majority of them care for the wrong things in the wrong priorities. Put these three in order:-

1. Getting my party into power
2. Getting personal advancement
3. The future of the UK

Well, most of us- but few of the (is it 655?) that are members of the House of Commons) would have number 3 top of the list, but as politicians don't - and care more about 1 and 2, we have ended up in a sh1t mess.

Most of this has been caused by earlier generations passing their sh1t on to those coming after them. So we've had the retirement age difference between women and men bizarrely being maintained for decades, retirement age in general being too low for decades, final salary pensions for civil servants teachers et al when there wasn't money set aside to pay for them and so on.

Right now, we have a tax system that is crying out for income tax rises as our spending outweighs our sales catastrophically, but no-one will address it as putting up income taxes (whether it is for the high earners or the masses) loses votes and any party that does it knows they won't get back into power.

It is the wrong people that will have to pay for this mess. The old have organised it over the last few generations (oh, and thanks for Brexit, by the way, old-timers, but hey, a lot of you will be dead by the time the sh1t really hits the fan), and the young will end up having to pay for it.

I don't want to pay more income tax, but I know that I ought to be. We will keep going like this until either the main parties put their heads together and agree to put up taxes with cross party support and for the national good (like that's going to happen), or we end up as the new Greece. But at least the Greeks have a nice climate.

Some good observations there, Timshorts.

I've posted on here a few times that all MPs, Gov't ministers and senior civil servants should all receive defined contribution pensions - and the majority of their pension savings should be invested in the "UK economy." That way, if they make good decisions for the economy and the wealth of the nation then they will enjoy a comfortable retirement. If they get things wrong, then they will share the taxpayers' pain.

I'd also limit the time someone can be "in politics" if they've never had a job away from politics. So, yes, you can leave college and become an MP, but then you can only be an MP for maximum 10 years and you must leave politics for at least the next 10 years before you are eligible again to become an MP. Simple rule: politics is not a career (and it's not "a job").

Another rule: no more than one member of a family group can hold political office at any one time. Let's open up politics to a wider group.

Slightly different note: I don't buy this intergenerational conflict stuff. Yes, I'm in my 60s. My first grandchild was born earlier this week. It's not hard for the older generations to want to do everything for the younger generations.

[Paul Waine]

Not a lot wrong with the climate down here old son

Beautiful spring day in south west London today.

Wish I was up Pendle and walking the moors.

[Colburn_Claret]

I don't work for the Inland Revenue, so this is only a guess, but I imagine the book of British Taxes is about 6" thick. Therein lies the problem. The more complicated a thing is, the easier it is to find loopholes.
Whatever the truth the whole system needs simplifying. Making it not only easier to collect, but a lot harder to defraud.

[dsr]

I don't work for the Inland Revenue, so this is only a guess, but I imagine the book of British Taxes is about 6" thick. Therein lies the problem. The more complicated a thing is, the easier it is to find loopholes.
Whatever the truth the whole system needs simplifying. Making it not only easier to collect, but a lot harder to defraud.

You have to be joking. Make it 6 feet thick and you might be in the right ballpark.

The second part of your comment, I agree completely.

[timshorts]

Perhaps you are unaware that 11% of tax collected by the Inland Revenue comes from those who are on the State Pension?
Are you suggesting that winter fuel allowance should be means tested? .

Yes, of course it should. But that would be "stage 2". We have a bit more of a problem at "stage 1". The winter fuel allowance is presently received by people that are already dead. If you die in September/October, you still qualify for a payment a few months later. I tried sending one back once (for a relatively huge estate where the beneficiary children had been a bit embarrassed to receive it), and the DWP didn't want it.

[dsr]

Yes, of course it should. But that would be "stage 2". We have a bit more of a problem at "stage 1". The winter fuel allowance is presently received by people that are already dead. If you die in September/October, you still qualify for a payment a few months later. I tried sending one back once (for a relatively huge estate where the beneficiary children had been a bit embarrassed to receive it), and the DWP didn't want it.

Find a charity - they'd make better use of it than the DWP. Probably.

[LoveCurryPies]

An oxymoron if I ever heard one.

The OP?