Unemployed earning more than working households

Yes it has been the case, because, what you state was localised (in the SE, mainly) and they would undercut other wages.

That is Thatcherism, happily extended by NL.

WM

It is called survival.

WM

Andy Walker posted

I believe the main objection is the possible extent of fraud. Since government money is paid out to somebody merely for existing, it would become profitable for crooks to fabricate identities on a large scale and claim their CI. No doubt this could be countered by compelling claimants to produce many kinds of identity proof (or an Identity Card!), but I can't help fearing the crooks would always be one step ahead. And since it's never been tried, no-one really knows what would happen.

Of course fraud is endemic in the current system. But because of the checks inherent in means testing, it is hard to do it simply by impersonation.

I am from a one parent family, my mother relied on social security because my father gave his life in service of his country. Never assume just because there is only 1 parent it is out of choice.

Rubbish, I moved at 40 from one career to a totally different career field. If you are willing to apply yourself it does not take long to climb the career path again.

The jobs may be there but you won't have the experience or knowledge if you had been in the same career field all your working life.

This is exactly my point. There are very many people like this who will be claiming benefits for the whole of their lives and who have no interest whatsoever in doing anything with their lives or ever getting worthwhile employment. Why should they when they can still smoke, drive, drink, go clubbing, etc, on benefits?

Ret.

Yes - survival on benefits (paid for by us) without any intention or wish to better their lives.

Ret.

No.

Until 40 I had only ever done non-destructive testing. I left that job due to health reasons and took on position in government that is more clerical and has nothing to do with any type of work I have done before.

However you gain skills in all types of work that can be utilised in others. I am not suggesting that you can get any job, but there are many you can get,

I think I made it.

Irrespective of the theoretical position of JSA as "taxable income", many recipients will never be asked to pay any tax on it, whereas some others will. But neither of them will pay tax on receipt of JSA. Perhaps it would be a good idea if they were required to.

My immediate reaction to that is that both myself and the other poster quoted above clearly got the impression that you had been denied the "Winter Fuel Allowance" on income grounds (and our comments are aimed squarely at that situation).

So you *got* it, did you?

Please be clear.

Not theoretical at all. When you accept what taxable income means, then you may wish to reply, once again, for some good purpose.

WM

You do not know that at all.

WM

Because life is a little more than just that? Maybe not for a copper ;)

WM

Is it? Where is your evidence ... The DM?

WM

On the absolute contrary, the categorisation of JSA as "taxable" is only theoretical. If it were not, every recipient would be made to pay the tax due on it. But not every recipient is made to pay the tax (as I strongly suspect you know full well).

Taxable income is income in excess of one's tax-free-allowance and upon which tax is due.

It simply isn't correct to apply that definition fully to JSA. It is potentially taxable, but not definitely so. The tax will become due in one specific sort of circumstance, and if that circumstance does not arise, the tax will never be due or collected. Spot the difference between that and tax on earnings.

That circumstance is if the JSA, taken together with all the recepient's other income, such as earnings, causes the tax-free-allowance to be exceeded.

There is no difference. If earnings, taken together with all the recipient's other income, falls below the relevant threshold, then no income tax will be due either [though it might first be collected and later refunded].

No. There is at least one more necessary condition which must be met before a sungle penny in tax ever becomes due.

Aren't you forgetting something?